Post by: chrisw1 on June 07, 2021, 06:00:28 PM
My understanding was that there was some releaxing of it to assist with Covid, but that it is still an issue and we will still have to comply with it over a 3 year period.
So where exactly do Villa stand with FFP? We've spent c£235m in the last 2 seasons and now approx £35m on Buendia. Another £40m this summer and we will break the £300m mark. Can we continue to do this? Are the likes of JWP etc realistic or are we over stretching?
Post by: Lastfootstamper on June 07, 2021, 06:05:18 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 07, 2021, 06:10:18 PM
Does anybody know specifically where things stand with FFP?
My understanding was that there was some releaxing of it to assist with Covid, but that it is still an issue and we will still have to comply with it over a 3 year period.
So where exactly do Villa stand with FFP? We've spent c£235m in the last 2 seasons and now approx £35m on Buendia. Another £40m this summer and we will break the £300m mark. Can we continue to do this? Are the likes of JWP etc realistic or are we over stretching?
i thought transfer payments would be staggered over a period ?
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 07, 2021, 06:14:03 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 07, 2021, 06:17:22 PM
We have sold one of our corner flags to ourselves for eight billion pounds. Panic over.
How very Man City of us. I’m sure we will be threatened with sanctions, and then like them toss back many wads of cash to the governing bodies, and it will all magically go away.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 07, 2021, 06:18:09 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 07, 2021, 06:20:44 PM
The good news is next season will be our third in the PL, which means we can lose £105m over 3 season (£35m per year in the PL), whereas the season just gone FFP wise we still had to count our final season in the Championship where max loss was £13m (so £83m over 3 seasons). We survived by selling VP and some HS2 compensation, but my point is what is the situation going forward?
Post by: algy on June 07, 2021, 06:24:46 PM
Post by: algy on June 07, 2021, 06:32:56 PM
Obviously clubs should be run sustainably and not in a way that's going to poor their long term future in jeopardy, but FFP is just a straight up cartel.
Post by: Lastfootstamper on June 07, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
Post by: Jon Crofts on June 07, 2021, 06:50:37 PM
We have sold one of our corner flags to ourselves for eight billion pounds. Panic over.
Just the flag or the pole as well?
Post by: LeeB on June 07, 2021, 06:55:32 PM
We have sold one of our corner flags to ourselves for eight billion pounds. Panic over.
Just the flag or the pole as well?
This tells me that the pole is going to Citeh or Yanited, no way could Villa keep both.
Post by: Dave P on June 07, 2021, 07:15:38 PM
Under Xia, I used to worry about FFP.
Under NSWE, I don't.
Hope this helps.
Post by: LeeB on June 07, 2021, 07:19:14 PM
Post by: AV82EC on June 07, 2021, 07:31:32 PM
1) 19/20 and 20/21 season seem to be being treated together or averaged for FFP purposes
2) losses due to COVID reasons (loss of revenue) can be removed from the figures
However thats just EPL, unsure what UEFA have mandated.
Looks like the whole thing at UEFA level is being binned after Covid anyway so lets see what cunning ways the Scab 12 have of influencing things in pulling up the drawbridge to maintain the cartel.
Post by: richtheholtender on June 07, 2021, 07:31:51 PM
Purslow was instrumental in drawing up the FFP rules, wasn't he? I'd be absolutely astounded if we weren't working to the letter of the law (fella).
Are you H? From Moseley?
Post by: Jon Crofts on June 07, 2021, 07:36:17 PM
My take.
Under Xia, I used to worry about FFP.
Under NSWE, I don't.
Hope this helps.
Under Xia I used to worry about where the pot was to piss in let alone FFP.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 07, 2021, 08:24:11 PM
You'd be better off putting these questions to SHA and Molineux Mix.
The man to ask is Mr Popodopolous on OTIB. He seems to spend more time analysing our accounts than the whole of our Finance Dept.
Post by: AV82EC on June 07, 2021, 08:38:56 PM
You'd be better off putting these questions to SHA and Molineux Mix.
The man to ask is Mr Popodopolous on OTIB. He seems to spend more time analysing our accounts than the whole of our Finance Dept.
He was one of those salty Bristol City fans wasn't he. Absolute mentalist.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 07, 2021, 09:10:13 PM
You'd be better off putting these questions to SHA and Molineux Mix.
It's pretty amazing to hear Wolves fans pointing at us and screaming FFP!
Take a look closer to home, bitches.
Post by: Damo70 on June 07, 2021, 09:15:42 PM
You'd be better off putting these questions to SHA and Molineux Mix.
It's pretty amazing to hear Wolves fans pointing at us and screaming FFP!
Take a look closer to home, bitches.
Surely selling their two best players to Liverpool and Spurs last summer will have helped with FFP.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 07, 2021, 10:20:37 PM
Post by: sickbeggar on June 08, 2021, 07:19:37 AM
* A Football Club may get back less than the amount invested. Information on past player performance, where given, is not necessarily a guide to future performance. The capital value of players in the squad can fluctuate and the price of players can go down as well as up and is not guaranteed.If you have any doubts as to the merits of this post, you should seek advice from an independent financial advisor. [/i]
Post by: chrisw1 on June 08, 2021, 09:03:16 AM
My take.Not really Dave, no.
Under Xia, I used to worry about FFP.
Under NSWE, I don't.
Hope this helps.
We all know we're being better managed financially. I was hoping for a more sensible answer on where we stand with FFP and how much more we can spend before we would be in breach of the regulations. There's a finate amount we can spend over a 3 year period and we must be getting very close to it. We're just the sort of club they would like to make an example of so we can't just ignore it and say 'we're significantlu richer than yow.'
Post by: paul_e on June 08, 2021, 09:11:28 AM
On top of that even with the 2 years in 1 thing and writing off of some covid related debts I can't see FFP surviving as is because the impact is so broad that any sanctions would be open to legal challenge.
Post by: AV82EC on June 08, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
My take.Not really Dave, no.
Under Xia, I used to worry about FFP.
Under NSWE, I don't.
Hope this helps.
We all know we're being better managed financially. I was hoping for a more sensible answer on where we stand with FFP and how much more we can spend before we would be in breach of the regulations. There's a finate amount we can spend over a 3 year period and we must be getting very close to it. We're just the sort of club they would like to make an example of so we can't just ignore it and say 'we're significantlu richer than yow.'
I’ve seen a few guesses on Twitter from those who seem to revel in the detailed analysis of football finances that we’re still probably £20-£30mill short of our allowed £105m loss over three seasons. However, as the rules have changed during the pandemic and various costs can be excluded from the calculation I’m sure Mr C Purslow and the finance boys will be rightly pushing the rules to the limit. Like others I’d suggest letting NSWE and Purslow worry about that, enjoy the football and our current incisive play in the transfer market.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 08, 2021, 09:46:32 AM
Where we stand is that our CEO was a key player in writing the regulations. If we're doing something it's because he knows that it's within the rules or covered by a loophole of some sort.and very few European clubs will be able to meet the existing criteria.
On top of that even with the 2 years in 1 thing and writing off of some covid related debts I can't see FFP surviving as is because the impact is so broad that any sanctions would be open to legal challenge.
So they may try to rewrite the rules and after the ESL debacle I think that they may find that extremely difficult.
That is without Citeh flagrantly undermining the whole process.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 08, 2021, 09:59:21 AM
The speculation that it will all fall down is great, I hope it does. But I don't see us being the club leading the charge in challenging it legally. I believe we will try to comply with it, albeit as creatively as we can. So the point remains pre-Covid it was a petty simple £105m loss over 3 seasons. I know clubs are allowed to add back in Covid losses which I think are estimated at c £30m, but I don't really have any understanding of the detail or where we stand. I wondered if anybody else does?Where we stand is that our CEO was a key player in writing the regulations. If we're doing something it's because he knows that it's within the rules or covered by a loophole of some sort.and very few European clubs will be able to meet the existing criteria.
On top of that even with the 2 years in 1 thing and writing off of some covid related debts I can't see FFP surviving as is because the impact is so broad that any sanctions would be open to legal challenge.
So they may try to rewrite the rules and after the ESL debacle I think that they may find that extremely difficult.
That is without Citeh flagrantly undermining the whole process.
Post by: sickbeggar on June 08, 2021, 10:06:46 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 08, 2021, 10:10:43 AM
Post by: danno on June 08, 2021, 10:11:17 AM
I tend to agree with other posters, after a year without full stadiums or corporate hospitality it's very unlikely many clubs can currently comply with FFP.
I also don't believe that we're selling Grealish to balance the books, if that's what you're really asking.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 08, 2021, 10:13:25 AM
The speculation that it will all fall down is great, I hope it does. But I don't see us being the club leading the charge in challenging it legally. I believe we will try to comply with it, albeit as creatively as we can. So the point remains pre-Covid it was a petty simple £105m a season loss over 3 seasons. I know clubs are allowed to add back in Covid losses which I think are estimated at c £30m, but I don't really have any understanding of the detail or where we stand. I wondered if anybody else does?Where we stand is that our CEO was a key player in writing the regulations. If we're doing something it's because he knows that it's within the rules or covered by a loophole of some sort.and very few European clubs will be able to meet the existing criteria.
On top of that even with the 2 years in 1 thing and writing off of some covid related debts I can't see FFP surviving as is because the impact is so broad that any sanctions would be open to legal challenge.
So they may try to rewrite the rules and after the ESL debacle I think that they may find that extremely difficult.
That is without Citeh flagrantly undermining the whole process.
I can't shed any light on the technicalities, Chris. I can, however, guarantee that whatever happens will be a stitch-up in favour of the brave clubs that signed up to the ESL and then suddenly realised that it was bad PR.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 08, 2021, 10:49:04 AM
Unless there's a hacker posting on here or Wes Edens posting under a pseudonym, nobody has the necessary financial information to hand to really answer your question.No it's not. I guess I'm asking how much more we can likley spend this season without being at serious risk.
I tend to agree with other posters, after a year without full stadiums or corporate hospitality it's very unlikely many clubs can currently comply with FFP.
I also don't believe that we're selling Grealish to balance the books, if that's what you're really asking.
Post by: rob_bridge on June 08, 2021, 10:58:51 AM
#You'd be better off putting these questions to SHA and Molineux Mix.
It's pretty amazing to hear Wolves fans pointing at us and screaming FFP!
Take a look closer to home, bitches.
Surely selling their two best players to Liverpool and Spurs last summer will have helped with FFP.
That raised about 45m. Not huge
Post by: danno on June 08, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
Unless there's a hacker posting on here or Wes Edens posting under a pseudonym, nobody has the necessary financial information to hand to really answer your question.No it's not. I guess I'm asking how much more we can likley spend this season without being at serious risk.
I tend to agree with other posters, after a year without full stadiums or corporate hospitality it's very unlikely many clubs can currently comply with FFP.
I also don't believe that we're selling Grealish to balance the books, if that's what you're really asking.
Fair enough, it's something to wonder about to be sure.
But without first hand knowledge of how our previous transfers have all been structured, I don't see how anybody could adequately answer your question.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 08, 2021, 03:12:45 PM
#You'd be better off putting these questions to SHA and Molineux Mix.
It's pretty amazing to hear Wolves fans pointing at us and screaming FFP!
Take a look closer to home, bitches.
Surely selling their two best players to Liverpool and Spurs last summer will have helped with FFP.
That raised about 45m. Not huge
which they then mostly spent on some skinny kid with next to no experience and a shit full back, but because he was from Barcelona he was ace. But we are the problem
Post by: TelfordVilla on June 08, 2021, 03:45:18 PM
Post by: TelfordVilla on June 08, 2021, 03:46:31 PM
Post by: TelfordVilla on June 08, 2021, 03:47:41 PM
Post by: The Edge on June 08, 2021, 05:28:35 PM
I understand your concerns mate and I have very limited knowledge on how ffp works. I do know that certain clubs have managed to dodge it with apparent impunity so there's ways to do it. I also find comfort in the fact that we have Christian Purslow in our ranks who literally wrote the rules. I'm relaxed about it in all honesty.My take.Not really Dave, no.
Under Xia, I used to worry about FFP.
Under NSWE, I don't.
Hope this helps.
We all know we're being better managed financially. I was hoping for a more sensible answer on where we stand with FFP and how much more we can spend before we would be in breach of the regulations. There's a finate amount we can spend over a 3 year period and we must be getting very close to it. We're just the sort of club they would like to make an example of so we can't just ignore it and say 'we're significantlu richer than yow.'
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 08, 2021, 05:49:07 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 09, 2021, 09:35:46 AM
The Swiss Ramble was always my go to website for money/football stuff but it doesn’t appear to have been updated for a while. He’s on twitter but I don’t know how to use/search there.
Nooooooooooooooo!
Post by: AV82EC on June 09, 2021, 10:06:49 AM
The Swiss Ramble was always my go to website for money/football stuff but it doesn’t appear to have been updated for a while. He’s on twitter but I don’t know how to use/search there.
Nooooooooooooooo!
Ha ha ha, don’t disappear down a SwissRamble rabbit hole on Twitter before you know it you’ll be having earnest conversations with Risso about EBITDA.
Post by: eamonn on June 09, 2021, 10:22:17 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 09, 2021, 10:58:46 AM
EBITDA...the working title to Trio's 1980 classic Da Da Da. Fiscal prudence often came first in West Germany.
The Beatles were first, "EBITDE, EBITDA, life goes on, whoa.....
Post by: eamonn on June 09, 2021, 01:37:31 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 24, 2021, 11:48:02 AM
The panel in Derby FFP case has taken on board the appeal body’s view re amortisation & fined #DCFC £100k. But EFL wants a points penalty that would relegate them, so it’s publishing 2 sets of fixtures for Ch’ship & L1, one w/ Derby, the other w/ Wycombe, pending a likely appeal.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 24, 2021, 11:55:17 AM
Post by: eamonn on June 24, 2021, 12:22:05 PM
Post by: in exile on June 24, 2021, 12:28:34 PM
Post by: ADVILLAFAN on June 24, 2021, 02:51:42 PM
We thrashed them home and away and were far better in the Final, save for the last 10 minutes.
Still, their fans seem like a nice bunch.
Post by: Dave P on July 02, 2021, 06:13:50 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57701348
Post by: Toronto Villa on July 02, 2021, 06:39:37 PM
Post by: eamonn on July 02, 2021, 10:18:28 PM
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 24, 2023, 05:15:16 PM
"In accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1, the Premier League confirms that it has today referred an alleged breach of the League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules by Everton Football Club to a Commission under Premier League Rule W.3.4. The assessment period for which it is alleged that the Club is in breach is the period ending Season 2021/22.
“Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.
“The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website. The League will be making no further comment until that time.”
Post by: charlatan on March 24, 2023, 05:32:04 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on March 24, 2023, 10:51:53 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65068357
Guilty as charged?
Well, they used allowable "Covid losses" to avoid FFP sanction.
They claimed £170m over 2 seasons to stay within FFP loss limits and avoid sanctions.
Fair and proportionate?, I hear you ask.
Well Villa - a pretty similar club financially claimed £56.3m.
Everton were very much an outlier amongst clubs of similar in terms of ground capacity, gates and turnover etc.
Don't forget - Leeds and Burnley considered legal action because they took the view that Everton's actions were unfair and broke EPL rules.
Should be fun to see what happens next.
Post by: Jon Crofts on March 30, 2023, 10:04:55 AM
Fulham
Newcastle
Chelsea
Palace
Leeds
Forest
Southampton
Watford
Everton
Post by: Drummond on March 30, 2023, 10:07:57 AM
9 Premier League (And former) clubs yet to submit accounts for 2022, deadline is 31 March.
Fulham
Newcastle
Chelsea
Palace
Leeds
Forest
Southampton
Watford
Everton
These 6 will provide some interesting reading I suspect.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 30, 2023, 10:17:35 AM
Post by: Drummond on March 30, 2023, 10:35:20 AM
I would imagine Newcastle wouldn't have anything to worry about yet - they've spent a fair amount, yes, but they had several years of spending nothing under Ashley prior to that so would expect they'd have had a bit of leaway?
Not yet, but you'd imagine there will already be some losses building up.
Post by: Brend'Watkins on March 30, 2023, 10:42:09 AM
Financial Sustainibility Regulations it is now called.
Post by: LeeB on March 30, 2023, 10:52:05 AM
I would imagine Newcastle wouldn't have anything to worry about yet - they've spent a fair amount, yes, but they had several years of spending nothing under Ashley prior to that so would expect they'd have had a bit of leaway?
Not yet, but you'd imagine there will already be some losses building up.
Back to that question again, but when do the three year periods for each club begin and end?
Post by: placeforparks on March 30, 2023, 10:55:36 AM
9 Premier League (And former) clubs yet to submit accounts for 2022, deadline is 31 March.
Fulham
Newcastle
Chelsea
Palace
Leeds
Forest
Southampton
Watford
Everton
These 6 will provide some interesting reading I suspect.
accounts are up until 30 june 2022, so not sure forest's will be that interesting.
newcastle's will, given their splurge in jan 22.
everton sold richarlison on 30 june 22...
Post by: Drummond on March 30, 2023, 11:30:52 AM
I would imagine Newcastle wouldn't have anything to worry about yet - they've spent a fair amount, yes, but they had several years of spending nothing under Ashley prior to that so would expect they'd have had a bit of leaway?
Not yet, but you'd imagine there will already be some losses building up.
Back to that question again, but when do the three year periods for each club begin and end?
Isn't it a rolling three-year process?
Post by: Baldy on March 30, 2023, 12:13:17 PM
Big wigs over here would not comment on whether they are reviewing the position.
I wonder if Newcastle will not splash the cash until position clarified?
Post by: GordonCowansisthegreatest on March 30, 2023, 04:03:17 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 30, 2023, 08:54:54 PM
Quote
Manchester United owe £969.6m through a combination of gross debt, bank borrowings and outstanding transfer fees with associated payments, according to new figures.
The club released their second quarter results to 31 December on Thursday.
Unlike previous years, there was no investors' call afterwards as a result of the ongoing "strategic review".
This could lead to the sale of the Premier League club.
The review itself is centred on how to meet the club's long-term capital investment needs, specifically for improvements to Old Trafford and the club's Carrington training ground, and - it is being stressed - is not due to any issues with short-term liquidity.
Nevertheless, the amount owed the club has grown.
While the principal debt remains at $650m, a change in the exchange rate meant the club owed £535.7m compared to £477.1m at the same point in the previous year.
In addition, £206.2m has been taken from a rolling credit facility, with another £227.7m owed in outstanding transfer fees. The club did have £31m in cash or equivalent, but the overall sum remains just short of £1bn.
BBC Sport has been told the figures are evidence of a "stretched" financial situation, although it is being stressed that this has already changed for the better, due to bumper matchday revenues and impressive season ticket sales - and they expect that to continue.
Indeed, in posting profits of £6.3m for the quarter, United have also revealed sponsorship revenue has increased 43.2% to £50.4m over the prior quarter. The club said this was due to the impact of their training kit agreement with Tezos, plus a 'one-off sponsorship credit', which they have opted not to detail.
Wages were down £20.4m to £77.3m, a decrease of 20.9% as Erik ten Hag's team are not in this season's Champions League.
Post by: sid1964 on March 31, 2023, 06:40:33 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 31, 2023, 07:44:29 AM
I think Kieran Maguire (football finance expert) estimated shortly after Newcastle got taken over that the could spend around 600m ish and would still be ok. Can’t remember what period this was over and it did include estimated increased commercial income. The general gist is they would be fineI would imagine Newcastle wouldn't have anything to worry about yet - they've spent a fair amount, yes, but they had several years of spending nothing under Ashley prior to that so would expect they'd have had a bit of leaway?
Not yet, but you'd imagine there will already be some losses building up.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on March 31, 2023, 08:06:43 AM
I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise, you would assume that they pay far more than us - their players must be on large bonus's for qualifying for the Champions League.
Not sure that’s true at all… Phil Jones is on £75k a week and hasn’t kicked a ball for how many years?? They’ve also just introduced that internal cap when their wage bill became the highest in the league so I’m not sure we’re even close to that
Post by: OCD on March 31, 2023, 11:15:04 AM
I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise, you would assume that they pay far more than us - their players must be on large bonus's for qualifying for the Champions League.
Not sure that’s true at all… Phil Jones is on £75k a week and hasn’t kicked a ball for how many years?? They’ve also just introduced that internal cap when their wage bill became the highest in the league so I’m not sure we’re even close to that
Supposed to be offering Rashford £400k/week. Their wage bill must dwarf ours.
Post by: paul_e on March 31, 2023, 11:33:41 AM
At a guess I'd say we're not even half theirs.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on March 31, 2023, 11:36:29 AM
I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise, you would assume that they pay far more than us - their players must be on large bonus's for qualifying for the Champions League.
A quick google would suggest they're in the high £300m (£I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise, you would assume that they pay far more than us - their players must be on large bonus's for qualifying for the Champions League.
Not sure that’s true at all… Phil Jones is on £75k a week and hasn’t kicked a ball for how many years?? They’ve also just introduced that internal cap when their wage bill became the highest in the league so I’m not sure we’re even close to that
Supposed to be offering Rashford £400k/week. Their wage bill must dwarf ours.
Not sure that’s true at all… Phil Jones is on £75k a week and hasn’t kicked a ball for how many years?? They’ve also just introduced that internal cap when their wage bill became the highest in the league so I’m not sure we’re even close to that
Supposed to be offering Rashford £400k/week. Their wage bill must dwarf ours.
Absolutely, i'd expect it to be 3x as large easily
Post by: Lastfootstamper on March 31, 2023, 12:16:11 PM
Post by: Risso on March 31, 2023, 12:22:38 PM
Villa - £138m
2.8 times higher.
Post by: Dave on March 31, 2023, 12:48:40 PM
The last time wagebills came up the tuinking was tgat we were 7th in the lesgue and they were top.
At a guess I'd say we're not even half theirs.
There you go.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsYdml6XwAANQsG?format=png)
Post by: Dave on March 31, 2023, 12:49:42 PM
I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise
It's definitely a surprise that you would think that.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 31, 2023, 02:14:04 PM
384-137= 247, only nearly 250 million out or 280%I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise
It's definitely a surprise that you would think that.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2023, 02:27:19 PM
384-137= 247, only nearly a quarter of a million out or 280%I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise
It's definitely a surprise that you would think that.
*clears throat*
Post by: Dave on March 31, 2023, 02:33:10 PM
Newcastle / Wolves / Brighton are pretty nicely set considering their squad quality versus their outlay on wages.
But the likes of Leicester, Palace and West Ham must wonder where on earth that money is going. Everton fans must see what they are spending, look at their squad and want to slit their wrists.
Post by: Mellin on March 31, 2023, 02:42:43 PM
You'd hope we can take Brighton and Brentford. If not this season, then next. I don't want to be dismissive of their achievemnts, which are incredible, but those clubs tend to revert to the mean over time. Think Leicester and Everton have boxed themselves in. We know better than anyone that if you're spending that money on a load of shit, you can get trapped pretty quickly. Can't recruit, can't shift. Misery.
A good summer and we're closet challengers to the establishment, which I will categorically take and then we'll see from there.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 31, 2023, 04:04:53 PM
woops384-137= 247, only nearly a quarter of a million out or 280%I would think that our wage bill is nearly as much as Man Utd's, which is a surprise
It's definitely a surprise that you would think that.
*clears throat*
Post by: Footy-Vill on October 20, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
It's about time they got relegated.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on October 22, 2023, 06:22:29 AM
Post by: London Villan on October 22, 2023, 06:33:15 AM
Everton's hearing into an alleged breach of the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules is to be announced on October 25th they could face a points deduction.
It's about time they got relegated.
I just can’t see the Premier League doing anything like that to a big club. It will be a fine, if anything. Same with man city, whenever that happens.
Post by: JD on October 22, 2023, 07:07:26 AM
I’ve been thinking about how we seem to have done really well in terms of FFP/P&S lately. Not an expert by any means, but have we fully amortised the fees of people like Emi1, Konsa, Mings, Dougie and Ollie since they’ve signed longer contracts after their first ones? Then there’s the academy grads that have been sold and the clawback on Ings & Targett. I’m not sure, but it feels like we’re in a strong position on this at the moment.
I think so as well mate. I think we are about to spend big in the next couple of transfer windows.
Post by: Risso on October 22, 2023, 08:12:44 AM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on October 22, 2023, 08:16:05 AM
I’ve been thinking about how we seem to have done really well in terms of FFP/P&S lately. Not an expert by any means, but have we fully amortised the fees of people like Emi1, Konsa, Mings, Dougie and Ollie since they’ve signed longer contracts after their first ones? Then there’s the academy grads that have been sold and the clawback on Ings & Targett. I’m not sure, but it feels like we’re in a strong position on this at the moment.
Stick or twist is a constant conundrum but it shows that sticking has its benefits despite it arguably being a lack of ambition. Finally being able to stick with the same manager can only help with this too.
Post by: AV82EC on October 22, 2023, 09:19:28 AM
I’ve been thinking about how we seem to have done really well in terms of FFP/P&S lately. Not an expert by any means, but have we fully amortised the fees of people like Emi1, Konsa, Mings, Dougie and Ollie since they’ve signed longer contracts after their first ones? Then there’s the academy grads that have been sold and the clawback on Ings & Targett. I’m not sure, but it feels like we’re in a strong position on this at the moment.
Stick or twist is a constant conundrum but it shows that sticking has its benefits despite it arguably being a lack of ambition. Finally being able to stick with the same manager can only help with this too.
Just to add to this, if the Manager feels he can deliver the ambitions of the board (and fans) with the majority of his existing squad then that massively helps with P&S as you may need to up wages for improved contracts as Risso says but you’re avoiding huge transfer fees and the need for huge Chelsea type splurges to improve your squad. We maybe need to cut this link between big transfers being seen as ambitious when in fact the approach this summer of 2 or 3 strategic squad acquisitions is actually what you need to advance.
Post by: paul_e on October 22, 2023, 11:48:01 AM
Post by: Footy-Vill on October 25, 2023, 05:45:52 PM
Everton's hearing into an alleged breach of the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules is to be announced on October 25th they could face a points deduction.
It's about time they got relegated.
I just can’t see the Premier League doing anything like that to a big club. It will be a fine, if anything. Same with man city, whenever that happens.
Hurrah. Hearing Premier League has recommended that Everton face a 12-point deduction !
Post by: eamonn on October 25, 2023, 06:25:20 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on October 25, 2023, 06:37:12 PM
Everton's hearing into an alleged breach of the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules is to be announced on October 25th they could face a points deduction.
It's about time they got relegated.
I just can’t see the Premier League doing anything like that to a big club. It will be a fine, if anything. Same with man city, whenever that happens.
Hurrah. Hearing Premier League has recommended that Everton face a 12-point deduction !
It's looking grave for them.
Post by: OCD on October 25, 2023, 06:39:04 PM
Post by: The Man With A Stick on October 25, 2023, 07:13:59 PM
Post by: AV84 on October 25, 2023, 07:16:59 PM
Post by: paul_e on October 25, 2023, 07:23:20 PM
So I expect we'll be hearing something similar about Man City any day now then...
To be fair the Man City situation is so extreme that it wouldn't surprise me if, even if it doesn't just go away following a big anonymous donation or 2, it'll be ages before there's a hearing on it.
Post by: LeeB on October 25, 2023, 09:56:52 PM
Post by: AV84 on October 25, 2023, 10:06:09 PM
It could make things interesting given everyone's pretty much written off the three promoted teams as already gone.
I mentioned it the other night that Luton, as much as they get slated, looked the most likely to nick a few results, but they'd probably still be relying on another club having a horrible season.
Post by: paul_e on October 25, 2023, 10:07:11 PM
It could make things interesting given everyone's pretty much written off the three promoted teams as already gone.
I had but Bournemouth and Fulham have made me rethink it anyway and Everton are only marginally ahead of any of them, looks more and more like 3 from 6.
Post by: LeeB on October 25, 2023, 10:15:39 PM
They were organised and physically stronger against whoever played. They've got Wimbledon vibes.
Post by: wince on October 26, 2023, 08:12:13 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on October 29, 2023, 07:54:50 PM
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Post by: AV82EC on October 29, 2023, 08:49:56 PM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Oh that’s hilarious that 5 years later he’s still going on about it with some detailed analysis of our HS2 payments and “privileged” access to Select Committes. What a twat.
Post by: Risso on October 29, 2023, 09:16:26 PM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Christ almighty, he makes Villadawg look relatively sane.
Post by: john2710 on October 29, 2023, 09:43:50 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on October 29, 2023, 10:24:18 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the government aren't putting pressure on the PL to brush the whole Man City thing under the carpet. Claiming, under the current circumstances that it could upset diplomatic relations.
Did you see that stuff about government level discussions abotu this with Abu Dhabi?
Of course they are.
Post by: algy on October 29, 2023, 11:22:40 PM
Absolutely. There's some kind of crazy cult of the new thing when it comes to transfers, wanting 5-7 new players every single summer, plus another 2 or 3 in January. It's crazy.I’ve been thinking about how we seem to have done really well in terms of FFP/P&S lately. Not an expert by any means, but have we fully amortised the fees of people like Emi1, Konsa, Mings, Dougie and Ollie since they’ve signed longer contracts after their first ones? Then there’s the academy grads that have been sold and the clawback on Ings & Targett. I’m not sure, but it feels like we’re in a strong position on this at the moment.
Stick or twist is a constant conundrum but it shows that sticking has its benefits despite it arguably being a lack of ambition. Finally being able to stick with the same manager can only help with this too.
Just to add to this, if the Manager feels he can deliver the ambitions of the board (and fans) with the majority of his existing squad then that massively helps with P&S as you may need to up wages for improved contracts as Risso says but you’re avoiding huge transfer fees and the need for huge Chelsea type splurges to improve your squad. We maybe need to cut this link between big transfers being seen as ambitious when in fact the approach this summer of 2 or 3 strategic squad acquisitions is actually what you need to advance.
Post by: Rory on October 30, 2023, 01:11:44 AM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Christ almighty, he makes Villadawg look relatively sane.
Haha, you're right, but 'relatively' is doing a lot of work there.
Post by: Jon Crofts on October 30, 2023, 08:27:49 AM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Christ almighty, he makes Villadawg look relatively sane.
Haha, you're right, but 'relatively' is doing a lot of work there.
What is it with Bristol City and their fans and former manager’s beef with Villa?
Post by: AV82EC on October 30, 2023, 09:45:30 AM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Christ almighty, he makes Villadawg look relatively sane.
Haha, you're right, but 'relatively' is doing a lot of work there.
What is it with Bristol City and their fans and former manager’s beef with Villa?
When we were among the bottom feeders trundling around in the Championship, Bristol City’s Manager and their fans seemed to think there’d been some changing of the guard (think even more tragic than Blues levels of obsession) and they were now “a bigger club” than us. In addition their Manager at the time, vertically challenged short man Lee Johnson was bitching about us having fans at both ends of the ground when we beat them 2-1 in the 10 game win streak. Oh and they’ve been banging on about our FFP on that board of theirs since we got relegated.
Post by: Jon Crofts on October 30, 2023, 10:00:18 AM
Post by: Monty on October 30, 2023, 10:06:31 AM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Christ almighty, he makes Villadawg look relatively sane.
That guy needs some help.
Post by: AV82EC on October 30, 2023, 10:06:59 AM
I knew about the Lee ‘two home ends’ Johnson bit but wasn’t aware of their delusions of grandeur.
Not that at times in the last 10 years it hasn’t been warranted but it does seem to be an affliction of southern based clubs desperately trying to be relevant, Brighton, Southampton, Bristol City, Reading, Bournemouth to name a few.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on October 30, 2023, 10:14:13 AM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
Christ almighty, he makes Villadawg look relatively sane.
Haha, you're right, but 'relatively' is doing a lot of work there.
What is it with Bristol City and their fans and former manager’s beef with Villa?
When we were among the bottom feeders trundling around in the Championship, Bristol City’s Manager and their fans seemed to think there’d been some changing of the guard (think even more tragic than Blues levels of obsession) and they were now “a bigger club” than us. In addition their Manager at the time, vertically challenged short man Lee Johnson was bitching about us having fans at both ends of the ground when we beat them 2-1 in the 10 game win streak. Oh and they’ve been banging on about our FFP on that board of theirs since we got relegated.
Johnson was also, immediately prior to the game at our place in 2017-18, that night match, talking about our delusions of grandeur etc etc, and being really sneery about us, pretty much a 'you're not famous any more'. They were 4th and we were 5th at the time.
Then we absolutely took them apart 5-0, and of course, they got renditions of '5-0 on your big day out' and other similar songs, and he was moaning about how condescending we were.
I honestly can't stand that little ******. I was glad we got the chance to say hello to him again beating Hibs 8-0 on aggregate.
Post by: Clampy on October 30, 2023, 10:27:24 AM
Post by: ian c. on October 30, 2023, 10:44:39 AM
Popped on OTIB after Pearson being sacked, I see Mr Popodopolous is still obsessing over Villa 'cheating' FFP regulations. ;D
https://www.otib.co.uk/topic/198743-the-championship-ffp-thread-merged/page/149/
The only useful information I got from that was that the Reading owner's name is Dai Yongge. I assume he's not the one who comes from a village near Abersoch.
Post by: eamonn on October 30, 2023, 11:19:58 AM
He's managing Fleetwood now.
Mick personally, or the whole Mac? They treated Buckingham like shit so they deserve to be lumbered with Lee Johnson.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on October 30, 2023, 12:36:56 PM
The only useful information I got from that was that the Reading owner's name is Dai Yongge. I assume he's not the one who comes from a village near Abersoch.
I'm just surprised he hasn't made the 'Deathwatch' thread yet.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on October 30, 2023, 12:44:14 PM
The only useful information I got from that was that the Reading owner's name is Dai Yongge. I assume he's not the one who comes from a village near Abersoch.
I'm just surprised he hasn't made the 'Deathwatch' thread yet.
I also assume his nickname is 'Live Fast'.
Post by: Bent Neilsens Screamer on October 30, 2023, 12:48:08 PM
He's managing Fleetwood now.
Mick personally, or the whole Mac? They treated Buckingham like shit so they deserve to be lumbered with Lee Johnson.
I think that was just a rumour.
Post by: Chris Smith on October 30, 2023, 01:06:46 PM
He's managing Fleetwood now.
Mick personally, or the whole Mac? They treated Buckingham like shit so they deserve to be lumbered with Lee Johnson.
How long until they’re telling him to go now?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on October 30, 2023, 01:09:48 PM
He's managing Fleetwood now.
Mick personally, or the whole Mac? They treated Buckingham like shit so they deserve to be lumbered with Lee Johnson.
How long until they’re telling him to go now?
That’s the Moody Blues Chris. (And it’s a cover anyway).
Post by: Chris Smith on October 30, 2023, 01:17:48 PM
He's managing Fleetwood now.
Mick personally, or the whole Mac? They treated Buckingham like shit so they deserve to be lumbered with Lee Johnson.
How long until they’re telling him to go now?
That’s the Moody Blues Chris. (And it’s a cover anyway).
Shit, I’m losing it.
Post by: Toronto Villa on November 08, 2023, 06:56:15 PM
Post by: OCD on November 08, 2023, 07:00:10 PM
Post by: AV84 on November 08, 2023, 07:05:39 PM
Post by: Footy-Vill on November 17, 2023, 02:12:01 PM
Everton's hearing into an alleged breach of the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules is to be announced on October 25th they could face a points deduction.
It's about time they got relegated.
I just can’t see the Premier League doing anything like that to a big club. It will be a fine, if anything. Same with man city, whenever that happens.
Hurrah. Hearing Premier League has recommended that Everton face a 12-point deduction !
An independent Commission has imposed an immediate deduction of 10 points on Everton FC for a breach of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs).
The Premier League issued a complaint against the Club and referred the case to an independent Commission earlier this year. During the proceedings, the Club admitted it was in breach of the PSRs for the period ending Season 2021/22 but the extent of the breach remained in dispute.
Following a five-day hearing last month, the Commission determined that Everton FC’s PSR Calculation for the relevant period resulted in a loss of £124.5million, as contended by the Premier League, which exceeded the threshold of £105million permitted under the PSRs. The Commission concluded that a sporting sanction in the form of a 10-point deduction should be imposed. That sanction has immediate effect.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on November 17, 2023, 03:53:22 PM
Or was this a result of some ‘research’?
Post by: Hookeysmith on November 17, 2023, 04:06:00 PM
It is clear that Everton have broke the rules but unless they view and punish the same for all teams you have to feel for them.
Post by: Villafirst on November 17, 2023, 04:12:05 PM
I understand that their FFP case could take years before it's heard. City have previously breached FFP but only got fined.
Post by: Nelly on November 17, 2023, 04:19:04 PM
The only useful information I got from that was that the Reading owner's name is Dai Yongge. I assume he's not the one who comes from a village near Abersoch.
I'm just surprised he hasn't made the 'Deathwatch' thread yet.
I also assume his nickname is 'Live Fast'.
I really appreciated this! Haha
Post by: pelty on November 17, 2023, 04:22:54 PM
It sort of sticks in your throat a little when you think of all the oil money and proposed pending breaches (where you just know nothing of note will come of it) logged against certain teams.
It is clear that Everton have broke the rules but unless they view and punish the same for all teams you have to feel for them.
Came here to say the same thing. I have no issue with Everton being docked points, but it seems comics that City walks free and clear.
Post by: IFWaters on November 17, 2023, 05:07:43 PM
Post by: rougegorge on November 17, 2023, 05:34:40 PM
However, like a lot of people, I am also wondering about Man City and Chelsea.
Pep will say it is all wrong and is nothing to do with his time at the club etc, but if there have been transgressions (and the list against Man City is very long), neither Man City nor Chelsea would have been in the position they are now and have been over the last ten years or more to accrue such wealth and wield huge spending power.
Their many trophies would be attributable to a lot of what has gone on before.
I expect nothing significant will happen to either of them and any fines would be like water of a duck's back to them.
Post by: Somniloquism on November 17, 2023, 08:55:12 PM
The FA may be under pressure to make an example of someone because of the independent regulator thing that's coming in. But in imposing 10 points on Everton they're kind of implying that if Man City and Chelsea are guilty of their breaches then they're going to be suffering Rangers-like multiple relegations. Which would be great in my book. About time the rules were applied the same to everyone.
Rangers only got punished with a 10 pt deduction by the SFA and certainly didn't suffer multiple relegations as part of any punishment. The entity of Glasgow Rangers went into administration and finally liquidation. The new entity tried to keep the old businesses place in the SPL, with them and SFA wanting them to start directly in Div 1. Luckily they were only allowed to start in the third by the SFL clubs.
Post by: IFWaters on November 17, 2023, 09:12:37 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 17, 2023, 09:47:05 PM
The FA may be under pressure to make an example of someone because of the independent regulator thing that's coming in. But in imposing 10 points on Everton they're kind of implying that if Man City and Chelsea are guilty of their breaches then they're going to be suffering Rangers-like multiple relegations. Which would be great in my book. About time the rules were applied the same to everyone.It won’t be though.
Post by: Hillbilly on November 17, 2023, 09:58:03 PM
Post by: Ads on November 18, 2023, 08:13:31 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 18, 2023, 09:49:22 AM
I think Chelsea are more fucked than Man City.They have admitted it and Co-operated thinking that as it was under a previous regime they would get clemency.
Man citeh on the other hand have thrown an army of lawyers at it and raised the drawbridge.
Post by: Clive W on November 18, 2023, 11:28:38 AM
I don’t fully understand the ffp rules as they seem to change every now and again
Clarification would be gratefully appreciated
Post by: Smithy on November 18, 2023, 11:43:55 AM
Would someone please confirm (hopefully) that we are in the clear as regards to ffp
I don’t fully understand the ffp rules as they seem to change every now and again
Clarification would be gratefully appreciated
I don't believe you can ever know "for certain", as club accounts don't go to the level of detail required to know what our FFP position is to the exact £. But people far better informed in these things than I am, can - and do - go through club player transactions and revenues to get rough idea of what the FFP position is, which might be close enough to be within a couple of million of the real position. The difficulty comes when player transactions and values aren't public knowledge.
The short version is we're almost certainly in the clear right now, thanks to the sales of homegrown players over the last few years, all of which gets counted on your FFP books as "profit" the year of the sale. How much wiggle room we have to allow spending in January, I've no idea - but I'm sure there are a few people in this thread who have a pretty good idea of how much more we can spend before it gets into dangerous territory.
Post by: Dave on November 18, 2023, 11:51:53 AM
The short version is we're almost certainly in the clear right now, thanks to the sales of homegrown players over the last few years, all of which gets counted on your FFP books as "profit" the year of the sale.
At the VERY least, those homegrown player sales show (and I think at the end of the summer there were people from the club on record saying) that it's something we're making sure we stay on the correct side of.
Post by: Smithy on November 18, 2023, 12:23:53 PM
Will we ever get to the point where we are paying the sorts of wages seen at the top end of the table? Possibly, but it will take a pretty significant set of changes to the club across the board to realise it. Qualifying for European football was a great start. Next step is the Champions League and all the extra commercial benefits this presents. We probably need to be a £300m+ revenue club to challenge at the top end of the table and not have to worry too much about FFP. That would put us up with the likes of Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal. Even West Ham are at £250m.
We're on the right track though, and going from mid-table in the Championship to Champions League contenders in five years without falling foul of FFP rules is pretty impressive.
Post by: Jon Crofts on November 18, 2023, 02:14:28 PM
Post by: VillaTim on November 18, 2023, 02:22:55 PM
On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
Post by: Smithy on November 18, 2023, 02:35:40 PM
You can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
Post by: N'ZMAV on November 18, 2023, 03:17:03 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on November 18, 2023, 03:21:03 PM
Nothing will happen to City or Chelsea.
And the saddest part is we all know it as well does the FA spineless wankers
Post by: VillaTim on November 18, 2023, 03:34:47 PM
Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
Post by: Toronto Villa on November 18, 2023, 03:37:44 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 18, 2023, 05:41:24 PM
Because they have enough cash to do so.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
Post by: pauliewalnuts on November 18, 2023, 05:45:27 PM
Because they have enough cash to do so.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
And because they amortise the costs appropriately.
Post by: Chris Harte on November 18, 2023, 05:54:57 PM
Don't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?Because they have enough cash to do so.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
And because they amortise the costs appropriately.
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 18, 2023, 06:01:52 PM
Yes it’s called amortisationDon't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?Because they have enough cash to do so.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
And because they amortise the costs appropriately.
Post by: VillaTim on November 18, 2023, 06:02:59 PM
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tacticsDon't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?Because they have enough cash to do so.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
And because they amortise the costs appropriately.
Post by: Chris Harte on November 18, 2023, 06:06:26 PM
I thought that was what Paulie was getting at.Yes it’s called amortisationDon't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?Because they have enough cash to do so.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a businessYou can lose money as a club, and more than the FFP amounts, but not on players/playing costs. For example, I think all the money we're ploughing to the ground and the new academy buildings will cost us loads, but they aren't included in the FFP calculations.On this day in 2011 Citeh announced losses of £197 million. Quite the turnaround in fortunes don't you think.Chelsea posted losses of £200m in their last accounts
And because they amortise the costs appropriately.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on November 18, 2023, 06:34:16 PM
Don't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
Post by: VillaTim on November 18, 2023, 07:14:10 PM
eh ? Aggresive tax avoidance = less tax . If it doesn't fire your accountantDon't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on November 18, 2023, 07:21:35 PM
eh ? Aggresive tax avoidance = less tax . If it doesn't fire your accountantDon't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
That's what he's saying to you, Tim.
There is nothing wrong with amortisation, all businesses do it, it is standard business practice.
Just for clarity, we're answering the following question. Which you asked.
Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a business
Post by: VillaTim on November 18, 2023, 07:25:29 PM
ok thanks. I understand amortisation.eh ? Aggresive tax avoidance = less tax . If it doesn't fire your accountantDon't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
That's what he's saying to you, Tim.
There is nothing wrong with amortisation, all businesses do it, it is standard business practice.
Just for clarity, we're answering the following question. Which you asked.Yeah but how can Chelsea spend £800m on new players when they are losing £200m per annum as a business
they (chelsea) are rolling the dice here . very risky strategy.
Post by: Simon Page on November 18, 2023, 07:41:12 PM
Don't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
I've yet to meet anyone who's asked for less public services when they're in need of them. Not that I think Chelsea are fudging the books with their eight-year deals.
Post by: tony scott on November 18, 2023, 09:33:07 PM
Post by: eamonn on November 18, 2023, 10:06:08 PM
Post by: mike on November 18, 2023, 10:37:48 PM
Don't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
I've yet to meet anyone who's asked for less public services when they're in need of them. Not that I think Chelsea are fudging the books with their eight-year deals.
Don't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
I've yet to meet anyone who's asked for less public services when they're in need of them.
clapt that I think Chelsea are fudging the books with their eight-year deals.Don't they give their new signings eight year contracts so they can spread the payments over the same period?
Just sounds like accountants fudging the books , in a similar vein to the way large corporations employ aggressive tax avoidance tactics
I've yet to meet anyone who asked me to arrange it for them to pay more tax.
I've yet to meet anyone who's asked for less public services when they're in need of them. Not that I think Chelsea are fudging the books with their eight-year deals.
[/quote] Not that I think Chelsea are fudging the books with their eight-year deals.
[/quote]
Post by: mike on November 18, 2023, 10:39:46 PM
Post by: darren woolley on November 19, 2023, 12:06:29 AM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on November 19, 2023, 12:06:41 AM
Not sure how they’ll get round it. Either they sell a good homegrown player each year or hope the rules change.
Post by: VillaTim on November 19, 2023, 12:21:31 AM
Post by: ROBBO on November 19, 2023, 12:24:30 AM
Post by: VillaTim on November 19, 2023, 12:25:44 AM
How much did they pay for Mudryk? if ever there was an overated player it's him.only £90m
Post by: Garyth on November 19, 2023, 02:05:10 AM
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0uAIst9WU0Yuc4kAradta5?si=QOEO0CgHRpmG0hggctdx7w (http://"https://open.spotify.com/episode/0uAIst9WU0Yuc4kAradta5?si=QOEO0CgHRpmG0hggctdx7w") (Spotify, about 32min in)
Some good points about UEFA changing their FFP requirements - Chelsea not in Europe meaning they have more leeway at the moment as EUFA is more strict than Premier League.
Post by: algy on November 19, 2023, 08:01:03 AM
This is a wow moment ten points for Everton how much for City or Chelsea if they are found guilty.Everton were about £10m the wrong side and lost 10pts. Fully expect Man City to be deducted 350pts so that it's proportional ....
Post by: Percy McCarthy on November 19, 2023, 08:05:24 AM
This is a wow moment ten points for Everton how much for City or Chelsea if they are found guilty.Everton were about £10m the wrong side and lost 10pts. Fully expect Man City to be deducted 350pts so that it's proportional ....
I think I heard that guy Garyth is linking to above (the link doesn’t work for me btw), talking about how much certain owners pumped into clubs over the last ten years. The Everton guy (Moshiri?) spaffed £600m on Everton while Mansoor spent £500m on Man Cheaty.
Highlights the importance of spending wisely I suppose, although no doubt MC were cheating like fuck throughout.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on November 19, 2023, 08:11:06 AM
This is a wow moment ten points for Everton how much for City or Chelsea if they are found guilty.Everton were about £10m the wrong side and lost 10pts. Fully expect Man City to be deducted 350pts so that it's proportional ....
Didn’t they vastly over estimate the corona year where clubs could put in estimated totals as if the virus didn’t happen (something like that)?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on November 19, 2023, 10:34:35 AM
This is a wow moment ten points for Everton how much for City or Chelsea if they are found guilty.Everton were about £10m the wrong side and lost 10pts. Fully expect Man City to be deducted 350pts so that it's proportional ....
I think I heard that guy Garyth is linking to above (the link doesn’t work for me btw), talking about how much certain owners pumped into clubs over the last ten years. The Everton guy (Moshiri?) spaffed £600m on Everton while Mansoor spent £500m on Man Cheaty.
Highlights the importance of spending wisely I suppose, although no doubt MC were cheating like fuck throughout.
When they took over Man City, despite having all the money in the world, they appointed some of the best people in the game to look after their investment - mostly Barcelona's leadership team.
When Lerner took over us, despite spending what was a huge amount of money at the time, he (eventually) appointed the bloke who ran his credit card call centre to look after it.
Post by: Simon Page on November 19, 2023, 10:41:02 AM
Even so, they'd have to dock Man City 60 points for them to be even close to a relegation fight.
Post by: Dave on November 19, 2023, 10:50:10 AM
If shown to be guilty, the only sanctions that would have any effect on Manchester City or Chelsea would be a really long European ban (5 years-plus), multiple relegations or a multi-season Premier League ban. All of which would be fun but probably legally unenforceable. Unless it's 10 points for every season or breach.
Even so, they'd have to dock Man City 60 points for them to be even close to a relegation fight.
I think I read that if they get ten points for each of their 115 breaches, they have to claw them all back over the seasons, and got promoted every season then in the 2050/51 season they'd get promoted to League Two.
Post by: The Edge on November 19, 2023, 10:50:56 AM
How much did they pay for Mudryk? if ever there was an overated player it's him.
I give you Mr Harry Maguire. A snip at 80 million quid
Post by: VillaTim on November 19, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
He had a few decent seasons at leastHow much did they pay for Mudryk? if ever there was an overated player it's him.
I give you Mr Harry Maguire. A snip at 80 million quid
Post by: The Edge on November 19, 2023, 10:54:27 AM
If shown to be guilty, the only sanctions that would have any effect on Manchester City or Chelsea would be a really long European ban (5 years-plus), multiple relegations or a multi-season Premier League ban. All of which would be fun but probably legally unenforceable. Unless it's 10 points for every season or breach.Man City will get away scott free. They have the best legal team on the planet that have tied everything in knots which will take years to untangle apparently.
Even so, they'd have to dock Man City 60 points for them to be even close to a relegation fight.
Post by: Simon Page on November 19, 2023, 11:15:02 AM
If the football authorities really wanted to stop the cheating or bending of rules, salary caps, squad sizes including loans, multiple ownership bans, real-time transparency and the like would be the way to go. Much fairer than docking a club points seasons after the offence.
Post by: VillaTim on November 19, 2023, 11:32:05 AM
Post by: Smithy on November 19, 2023, 12:07:12 PM
That wouldn't be a shock. I'm actually really iffy about deciding sporting events in the courts or tribunals. This feels a bit like tax law, where everything is so complex that the opportunities to create opaque and entangled - but probably legal - workarounds are infinite.
If the football authorities really wanted to stop the cheating or bending of rules, salary caps, squad sizes including loans, multiple ownership bans, real-time transparency and the like would be the way to go. Much fairer than docking a club points seasons after the offence.
I haven't actually read the FFP rules, so I don't know how complex the rules are, or how tightly defined they are, but it does feel a bit like Formula One. In that the the rules are defined, and then the teams find as many creative ways as they can circumvent them while "technically" still being on the right side. These things often end up the courts, because there is no other way to settle a disagreement between two parties who have a fundamentally different interpretations of the words on a page.
I don't even really properly understand the "breaches" that Man City have been accused of, only that there are a lot of them. They certainly give the impression they've found a legal loophole that others haven't exploited. I hope they're wrong.
Post by: VillaTim on November 19, 2023, 12:12:43 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 19, 2023, 12:42:09 PM
Hardly loopholes, there are blatant breaches of the rules. They weren’t even subtle about it.That wouldn't be a shock. I'm actually really iffy about deciding sporting events in the courts or tribunals. This feels a bit like tax law, where everything is so complex that the opportunities to create opaque and entangled - but probably legal - workarounds are infinite.
If the football authorities really wanted to stop the cheating or bending of rules, salary caps, squad sizes including loans, multiple ownership bans, real-time transparency and the like would be the way to go. Much fairer than docking a club points seasons after the offence.
I haven't actually read the FFP rules, so I don't know how complex the rules are, or how tightly defined they are, but it does feel a bit like Formula One. In that the the rules are defined, and then the teams find as many creative ways as they can circumvent them while "technically" still being on the right side. These things often end up the courts, because there is no other way to settle a disagreement between two parties who have a fundamentally different interpretations of the words on a page.
I don't even really properly understand the "breaches" that Man City have been accused of, only that there are a lot of them. They certainly give the impression they've found a legal loophole that others haven't exploited. I hope they're wrong.
Post by: paul_e on November 19, 2023, 02:26:03 PM
That wouldn't be a shock. I'm actually really iffy about deciding sporting events in the courts or tribunals. This feels a bit like tax law, where everything is so complex that the opportunities to create opaque and entangled - but probably legal - workarounds are infinite.
If the football authorities really wanted to stop the cheating or bending of rules, salary caps, squad sizes including loans, multiple ownership bans, real-time transparency and the like would be the way to go. Much fairer than docking a club points seasons after the offence.
I haven't actually read the FFP rules, so I don't know how complex the rules are, or how tightly defined they are, but it does feel a bit like Formula One. In that the the rules are defined, and then the teams find as many creative ways as they can circumvent them while "technically" still being on the right side. These things often end up the courts, because there is no other way to settle a disagreement between two parties who have a fundamentally different interpretations of the words on a page.
I don't even really properly understand the "breaches" that Man City have been accused of, only that there are a lot of them. They certainly give the impression they've found a legal loophole that others haven't exploited. I hope they're wrong.
Man City and Chelsea are both, in the main, accused of making payments to players outside their officials contracts. This isn't loopholes or remotely subtle, they've done things like booking a player as a 'consultant' for something and then paying them vast sums for the service despite there being no evidence that the player either did anything or would even be capable of doing what they were paid for. They know it's dodgy as fuck because the payments made from a 3rd party and went to either another 3rd party or to a hidden/off-shore \accounts.
It's pretty much the exact same trick that Saracens tried to pull off in the rugby who were punished with a points deduction that was designed to ensure relegation, that's a better precedent to look at than what has happened with Everton.
Post by: VillaTim on November 19, 2023, 04:29:35 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on November 19, 2023, 05:11:05 PM
Fine them £100m they will ask card or cheque...it would be pointless.
Ban them from Europe and I would imagine that would mean Pep would piss off which would mean they are not so powerful anymore.
Talk of taking away previous honours is just a ludicrous pipe dream
Post by: Meanwood Villa on November 19, 2023, 05:39:29 PM
Ban them from Europe and I would imagine that would mean Pep would piss off which would mean they are not so powerful anymore.
Mate of mine who's a Liverpool fan reckons Pep has priced himself out of any other job on the planet by taking the Abu Dhabi cash for so long and I reckon he's right. Maybe PSG or Saudi League might match his pay but no one else could.
That shit he's come out with before about him being promised by the owners they weren't cheating. What a load of bollocks. Trying to paint himself as someone with morals. He's up to his neck in it as much as anyone, the colossal bell end.
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 19, 2023, 07:32:27 PM
Yep, he has nailed his flag to the mast.
Ban them from Europe and I would imagine that would mean Pep would piss off which would mean they are not so powerful anymore.
Mate of mine who's a Liverpool fan reckons Pep has priced himself out of any other job on the planet by taking the Abu Dhabi cash for so long and I reckon he's right. Maybe PSG or Saudi League might match his pay but no one else could.
That shit he's come out with before about him being promised by the owners they weren't cheating. What a load of bollocks. Trying to paint himself as someone with morals. He's up to his neck in it as much as anyone, the colossal bell end.
Post by: IFWaters on November 19, 2023, 07:38:36 PM
He's up to his polo neck in it.Yep, he has nailed his flag to the mast.
Ban them from Europe and I would imagine that would mean Pep would piss off which would mean they are not so powerful anymore.
Mate of mine who's a Liverpool fan reckons Pep has priced himself out of any other job on the planet by taking the Abu Dhabi cash for so long and I reckon he's right. Maybe PSG or Saudi League might match his pay but no one else could.
That shit he's come out with before about him being promised by the owners they weren't cheating. What a load of bollocks. Trying to paint himself as someone with morals. He's up to his neck in it as much as anyone, the colossal bell end.
Post by: Drummond on November 20, 2023, 11:44:17 AM
These are the punishments that can be given by the Independent Commission.
Suspend a club from playing league matches
Points deductions
Recommend to the board that league matches be replayed
Recommend to the board that the league expels the respondent club
Order compensation
Cancel or refuse registration of players
Conditional punishment
Order the club to pay costs
Make such other order as it thinks fit
The charges faced by Man City are:
In accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1, the Premier League confirms that it has referred a number of alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules by Manchester City Football Club ( Club ) to a Commission under Premier League Rule W.3.4.
Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:
1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, E.3, 4, E.11 and E.12;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules 15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, 3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.
2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.
3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.
4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.
5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.
Post by: Drummond on November 20, 2023, 11:45:46 AM
A Premier League statement said: “Following a five-day hearing last month, the commission determined that Everton FC’s PSR [profit and sustainability rules] calculation for the relevant period resulted in a loss of £124.5m, as contended by the Premier League, which exceeded the threshold of £105m permitted under the PSRs. The commission concluded that a sporting sanction in the form of a 10-point deduction should be imposed. That sanction has immediate effect.”
Which is wholly different, they basically just lost more money than they were allowed to, whereas City are accused of basically being completely dishonest and trying to hide payments etc.
Post by: Smithy on November 20, 2023, 11:49:45 AM
That wouldn't be a shock. I'm actually really iffy about deciding sporting events in the courts or tribunals. This feels a bit like tax law, where everything is so complex that the opportunities to create opaque and entangled - but probably legal - workarounds are infinite.
If the football authorities really wanted to stop the cheating or bending of rules, salary caps, squad sizes including loans, multiple ownership bans, real-time transparency and the like would be the way to go. Much fairer than docking a club points seasons after the offence.
I haven't actually read the FFP rules, so I don't know how complex the rules are, or how tightly defined they are, but it does feel a bit like Formula One. In that the the rules are defined, and then the teams find as many creative ways as they can circumvent them while "technically" still being on the right side. These things often end up the courts, because there is no other way to settle a disagreement between two parties who have a fundamentally different interpretations of the words on a page.
I don't even really properly understand the "breaches" that Man City have been accused of, only that there are a lot of them. They certainly give the impression they've found a legal loophole that others haven't exploited. I hope they're wrong.
Man City and Chelsea are both, in the main, accused of making payments to players outside their officials contracts. This isn't loopholes or remotely subtle, they've done things like booking a player as a 'consultant' for something and then paying them vast sums for the service despite there being no evidence that the player either did anything or would even be capable of doing what they were paid for. They know it's dodgy as fuck because the payments made from a 3rd party and went to either another 3rd party or to a hidden/off-shore \accounts.
It's pretty much the exact same trick that Saracens tried to pull off in the rugby who were punished with a points deduction that was designed to ensure relegation, that's a better precedent to look at than what has happened with Everton.
Thanks Paul, that's the clearest/most succinct explanation I've seen of what they are accused of actually doing. It does make the mind boggle though, that if Man City's "official" wage bill is over £400m, what are they ACTUALLY paying these players?
I'm guessing anyone in receipt of this money hasn't broken any rules as long as they declare it correctly to the tax man? I mean, the players aren't obliged to declare the sources of all their income to the premier league?
Post by: chrisw1 on November 20, 2023, 11:58:56 AM
There's almost no punishment that would be severe enough for Man City. They have created their infrastructure and billion-pound value squad based on years of cheating. It would take an unprecedented points deduction for them to be relegated. Even then they'd get over relegation and be back in the top 4 in a couple of seasons. And they'd still sit there with the benefits of the legacy they have created.
The only thing that would come close to hurting them would be relegation to Division 4 and a long transfer ban. Even the, I think they'd be over it in no time.
And the football authorities just sat back and let it happen. Bastards.
Post by: Drummond on November 20, 2023, 11:58:57 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 20, 2023, 12:30:43 PM
If the players knowingly receive money into an account that should have been declared by the club to the PL then they are involved in deception which is a crime.That wouldn't be a shock. I'm actually really iffy about deciding sporting events in the courts or tribunals. This feels a bit like tax law, where everything is so complex that the opportunities to create opaque and entangled - but probably legal - workarounds are infinite.
If the football authorities really wanted to stop the cheating or bending of rules, salary caps, squad sizes including loans, multiple ownership bans, real-time transparency and the like would be the way to go. Much fairer than docking a club points seasons after the offence.
I haven't actually read the FFP rules, so I don't know how complex the rules are, or how tightly defined they are, but it does feel a bit like Formula One. In that the the rules are defined, and then the teams find as many creative ways as they can circumvent them while "technically" still being on the right side. These things often end up the courts, because there is no other way to settle a disagreement between two parties who have a fundamentally different interpretations of the words on a page.
I don't even really properly understand the "breaches" that Man City have been accused of, only that there are a lot of them. They certainly give the impression they've found a legal loophole that others haven't exploited. I hope they're wrong.
Man City and Chelsea are both, in the main, accused of making payments to players outside their officials contracts. This isn't loopholes or remotely subtle, they've done things like booking a player as a 'consultant' for something and then paying them vast sums for the service despite there being no evidence that the player either did anything or would even be capable of doing what they were paid for. They know it's dodgy as fuck because the payments made from a 3rd party and went to either another 3rd party or to a hidden/off-shore \accounts.
It's pretty much the exact same trick that Saracens tried to pull off in the rugby who were punished with a points deduction that was designed to ensure relegation, that's a better precedent to look at than what has happened with Everton.
Thanks Paul, that's the clearest/most succinct explanation I've seen of what they are accused of actually doing. It does make the mind boggle though, that if Man City's "official" wage bill is over £400m, what are they ACTUALLY paying these players?
I'm guessing anyone in receipt of this money hasn't broken any rules as long as they declare it correctly to the tax man? I mean, the players aren't obliged to declare the sources of all their income to the premier league?
Post by: nick harper on November 20, 2023, 12:55:28 PM
If Grealish is on the rumoured £350k per week, he won't be the only one, and Haaland is on considerably more. They've made record profits this year apparently, it just doesn't add up.
I’m not surprised they’re profitable now given all the player sales, and some home grown at that, they’ve made in the last couple of years. It’s the illegal way they’ve fast-tracked themselves into this position that is disgraceful.
I read it could be 2 years before the case is heard due to their lack of co-operation and how lawyered up they are.
Post by: chrisw1 on November 20, 2023, 01:07:36 PM
This is the key point. A points deduction or relegation will hardly touch them because of the position they have cheated their way into.If Grealish is on the rumoured £350k per week, he won't be the only one, and Haaland is on considerably more. They've made record profits this year apparently, it just doesn't add up.
I’m not surprised they’re profitable now given all the player sales, and some home grown at that, they’ve made in the last couple of years. It’s the illegal way they’ve fast-tracked themselves into this position that is disgraceful.
I read it could be 2 years before the case is heard due to their lack of co-operation and how lawyered up they are.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on November 20, 2023, 01:14:12 PM
Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.
Post by: Smithy on November 20, 2023, 01:25:40 PM
Absolutely, any team could make a profit once it has illegally acquired a billion-dollar squad. It's much like Chelsea, in that they bought their way to success before FFP became a thing, and it gave them a head start the rest didn't have.This is the key point. A points deduction or relegation will hardly touch them because of the position they have cheated their way into.If Grealish is on the rumoured £350k per week, he won't be the only one, and Haaland is on considerably more. They've made record profits this year apparently, it just doesn't add up.
I’m not surprised they’re profitable now given all the player sales, and some home grown at that, they’ve made in the last couple of years. It’s the illegal way they’ve fast-tracked themselves into this position that is disgraceful.
I read it could be 2 years before the case is heard due to their lack of co-operation and how lawyered up they are.
People also forget that Man City were bought three years before FFP came into force (five years before it came into force in the premier league), and in that time they made Robinho the most expensive player in history, plus the likes of Teves, Lescott, Jo, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Toure (both), Dzeko, Balotelli, Silva, Milner, plus plenty more - all bought for sums in the £20m-35m range, and all bought before FFP was even a thing.
Their net spend in the first three years before FFP came in was £350m-ish. That would be a lot today. And that's at a time when the world record transfer was £40m. In today's transfer money that's easily over a billion. None of that broke the rules of the time, but it meant they had players they could transfer for big fees to allow them to keep spending within the FFP rules. And that head start STILL wasn't enough, because it sounds like they've still been breaking them with under-the-table payments, and I hope the book gets thrown at them.
Post by: johnc on November 20, 2023, 01:30:45 PM
I also suspect that there would be quite a lot of noise along the lines of “you’re preventing us fans of seeing our heroes haaland, grealish etc” too.I am not sure this can be buried. Man City are a financial behemoth. Everton can't be the fall guys for what is going on elsewhere. Maybe this is why they wanted a super league so there could be none of this nonsense about trying to put a brake on their spending
Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.
Post by: ChicagoLion on November 20, 2023, 02:13:08 PM
I also suspect that there would be quite a lot of noise along the lines of “you’re preventing us fans of seeing our heroes haaland, grealish etc” too.I keep seeing this but I am not so sure.
Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.
There will have to be a settlement which involves Liverpool and Manure who are pushing for this. These clubs have huge global fan base and Sky the PL need them on board, if not the whole thing implodes.
The PL could end up in the same situation Serie A did, from the dominant league in Europe to a fragmented and declining organisation.
This is all down too piss poor leadership and a dreadful governance process at the PL/FA.
I dont see how they keep the PL from fragmenting.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on November 20, 2023, 02:23:47 PM
You’re right that It’d take a Liverpool/United to bring the whole thing down, but I’m not sure they’d do it as it could mess up the ecosystem that they live in.
Post by: sid1964 on November 20, 2023, 02:28:00 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on November 20, 2023, 02:35:38 PM
I also suspect that there would be quite a lot of noise along the lines of “you’re preventing us fans of seeing our heroes haaland, grealish etc” too.I am not sure this can be buried. Man City are a financial behemoth. Everton can't be the fall guys for what is going on elsewhere. Maybe this is why they wanted a super league so there could be none of this nonsense about trying to put a brake on their spending
Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.
I agree, there is no way they can now bury this.
If they've punished Everton pretty strongly, it's going to bring the Chelsea and Man City situations to the fore (already is) and put the PL in a situation where those clubs' cases can't be swept under the carpet.
Post by: Footy-Vill on November 20, 2023, 02:39:15 PM
I also suspect that there would be quite a lot of noise along the lines of “you’re preventing us fans of seeing our heroes haaland, grealish etc” too.I am not sure this can be buried. Man City are a financial behemoth. Everton can't be the fall guys for what is going on elsewhere. Maybe this is why they wanted a super league so there could be none of this nonsense about trying to put a brake on their spending
Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.
I agree, there is no way they can now bury this.
If they've punished Everton pretty strongly, it's going to bring the Chelsea and Man City situations to the fore (already is) and put the PL in a situation where those clubs' cases can't be swept under the carpet.
My understanding and theory
I am confident that justice will be served.
Manchester City have been refusing to cooperate and they have used delaying tactics, this will result in only adding to the punishment.
I believe they will face thus in two years around 2025, and it is no coincidence that Guardiola signed a two-year deal extension and will leave in 2025.
After this time then Man City will face consequences. That's my reckoning.
They are not looking into Pep's tenure. The FFP issue are charges before that.
And it appears to be an agreement to protect his legacy before Man City are demoted.
Post by: Drummond on November 20, 2023, 02:55:43 PM
I also suspect that there would be quite a lot of noise along the lines of “you’re preventing us fans of seeing our heroes haaland, grealish etc” too.I am not sure this can be buried. Man City are a financial behemoth. Everton can't be the fall guys for what is going on elsewhere. Maybe this is why they wanted a super league so there could be none of this nonsense about trying to put a brake on their spending
Sky need the tv revenue, so does the FA (is that who gets the tv money?), so there’s plenty if important stakeholders that will happily see it buried.
I agree, there is no way they can now bury this.
If they've punished Everton pretty strongly, it's going to bring the Chelsea and Man City situations to the fore (already is) and put the PL in a situation where those clubs' cases can't be swept under the carpet.
My understanding and theory
I am confident that justice will be served.
Manchester City have been refusing to cooperate and they have used delaying tactics, this will result in only adding to the punishment.
I believe they will face thus in two years around 2025, and it is no coincidence that Guardiola signed a two-year deal extension and will leave in 2025.
After this time then Man City will face consequences. That's my reckoning.
They are not looking into Pep's tenure. The FFP issue are charges before that.
And it appears to be an agreement to protect his legacy before Man City are demoted.
What? As if anyone gives a fuck about Guardiola's legacy. The FFP issues include at least 2 years of his tenure, but the payments to the manager cited related to Mancini.
Post by: eamonn on November 20, 2023, 02:57:17 PM
Post by: Footy-Vill on November 20, 2023, 03:05:39 PM
Post by: paul_e on November 20, 2023, 03:40:19 PM
I believe Pep would not have signed if he hadn't been assured before taking his two-year deal extension and that Man City till 2025 are safe from punishment..
No one who he negotiated with has the power to promise that. What they can promise (and do) is to delay things for as long as possible and make things as difficult as possible.
Post by: jwarry on January 11, 2024, 04:23:20 PM
“It’s risky as we’ve already got that player here and we know what they can do, but under Financial Fair Play [or PSR], if you sell a £50 million player and bring in an identical one on £50 million and the same wages, but amortise [gradually write off the initial cost of a player over the course of their contract] over the five years the player you are bringing in, that’s only £10 million a year so you are creating £40 million of headroom. That’s the reality of the FFP model.”
Post by: Ads on January 11, 2024, 04:25:31 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on January 11, 2024, 04:27:30 PM
The £50m goes straight on the books as profit on the day you do the deal, whereas the £50m you spend goes out over the course of the five year contract.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 11, 2024, 04:30:29 PM
They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?
If they are selling Isaak, we would be insane not to go in for him.
He is perfect for us.
Post by: Gareth on January 11, 2024, 04:34:07 PM
They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?
If they are selling Isaak, we would be insane not to go in for him.
He is perfect for us.
You are presuming we have headroom in our FFP tho…& Isak would cost 75/80m id guess
Post by: LeeB on January 11, 2024, 04:39:22 PM
They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?
Selling Longstaff to make room for Bellingham, man.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 11, 2024, 04:41:46 PM
They on about getting rid of Issak to get Solanke to free up cash for somebody else?
If they are selling Isaak, we would be insane not to go in for him.
He is perfect for us.
You are presuming we have headroom in our FFP tho…& Isak would cost 75/80m id guess
For that player, if available, I would make room.
I think I read somewhere, we have about £50M headroom. (Cant remember where)
Sell Digne, Dendoncker, Diego Carlos, Olsen & we might be good...
Especially if we get rid of Traore, Hause, etc this summer too.
Although math(s) isn't my strong point, I will readily admit...
Post by: Risso on January 11, 2024, 04:43:50 PM
How crazy is this? Quote from Newcastle CEO Darren Eales in The Times
“It’s risky as we’ve already got that player here and we know what they can do, but under Financial Fair Play [or PSR], if you sell a £50 million player and bring in an identical one on £50 million and the same wages, but amortise [gradually write off the initial cost of a player over the course of their contract] over the five years the player you are bringing in, that’s only £10 million a year so you are creating £40 million of headroom. That’s the reality of the FFP model.”
Ummm, it's not quite as straighforward as that though.
If they're talking about Isak, he cost £60m and is on a 6 year contract, So £10m amortisation a year. He's been there 18 months, so if you pro rate his amortisation it's £15m and his value on the balance sheet is therefore £45m. If they sold him for for what they paid for him, ie £60m, they'd make a £15m profit. If they got £45m for him, they'd make nothing at all. So with all players, it depends on if their value increases over time, and how long they have left on their contract. If they kept him until summer 2028 and he was still worth £60m, then yes that would be all profit.
Post by: Rigadon on January 11, 2024, 04:55:19 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 11, 2024, 05:11:23 PM
Is this type of pissing about with squads really the point of FFP, or a ridiculous symptom of it. They say it's to protect clubs from going bust. It isn't though, is it.
Quite right. It's perverse. Everyone's addicted to spending money. Say Newcastle were keen to sell Isak (I doubt they are), it'd be getting rid of an excellent player, who's settled and performing, in order to get 'headroom' to sign Solanke, who's no better, and might not fit in. Total madness.
Post by: paul_e on January 11, 2024, 05:17:42 PM
How crazy is this? Quote from Newcastle CEO Darren Eales in The Times
“It’s risky as we’ve already got that player here and we know what they can do, but under Financial Fair Play [or PSR], if you sell a £50 million player and bring in an identical one on £50 million and the same wages, but amortise [gradually write off the initial cost of a player over the course of their contract] over the five years the player you are bringing in, that’s only £10 million a year so you are creating £40 million of headroom. That’s the reality of the FFP model.”
Ummm, it's not quite as straighforward as that though.
If they're talking about Isak, he cost £60m and is on a 6 year contract, So £10m amortisation a year. He's been there 18 months, so if you pro rate his amortisation it's £15m and his value on the balance sheet is therefore £45m. If they sold him for for what they paid for him, ie £60m, they'd make a £15m profit. If they got £45m for him, they'd make nothing at all. So with all players, it depends on if their value increases over time, and how long they have left on their contract. If they kept him until summer 2028 and he was still worth £60m, then yes that would be all profit.
Being horribly nit-picky but in that scenario he'd either be up for a free as he'd be out of contract or, if they'd extended his contract, his book value would be changed to spread over the new deal. So in reality you'd never get full value of the fee on any player that didn't come through the academy or on a free (including if that free is a player reaching the end of their existing contract and then signing a new deal when they could walk away.
I'm not saying this to be a twat though, just to point out why selling an academy product for a decent fee is probably a better way to handle FFP than selling players you spent big money on, which is why so many teams are starting to do that. It's also why I don't think FFP as it stands will last much longer because whatever they were trying to achieve with it turning academies into cash farms rather than a genuine source of players for the club was definitely not something they'll have wanted.
Post by: Gareth on January 11, 2024, 06:45:18 PM
Is this type of pissing about with squads really the point of FFP, or a ridiculous symptom of it. They say it's to protect clubs from going bust. It isn't though, is it.
Its sole purpose was to prevent any more clubs getting a rich owner and buying themselves into the supposed ‘big’ club cartel. After Chelsea and Abu Dhabi City did it they didn’t want anymore. In reality it has stopped Newcastle already and ourselves won’t be able to spend what we want
Post by: enigma on January 11, 2024, 06:57:06 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 11, 2024, 07:06:37 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 11, 2024, 07:09:41 PM
We're running out of academy players who can be sold for a decent amount so I'm bracing myself for a departure of a big name in the summer.
I'm not.
Wouldn't be surprised to see Luiz move on for a big amount.
I would be.
Post by: Bad English on January 11, 2024, 07:52:55 PM
I notice Newcastle are saying 52k capacity is holding them back.It's probably the fact that while the nominal capacity is 52k, they are actually getting about 35k when the ground is full because their floppy white bellies take up a third of the available space.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 11, 2024, 07:55:55 PM
Is this type of pissing about with squads really the point of FFP, or a ridiculous symptom of it. They say it's to protect clubs from going bust. It isn't though, is it.
Its sole purpose was to prevent any more clubs getting a rich owner and buying themselves into the supposed ‘big’ club cartel. After Chelsea and Abu Dhabi City did it they didn’t want anymore. In reality it has stopped Newcastle already and ourselves won’t be able to spend what we want
That is exactly how I see it...
Post by: Ads on January 11, 2024, 08:21:33 PM
I notice Newcastle are saying 52k capacity is holding them back.
They're stuck aren't they with the buildings behind the Gallowgate being listed, so they can't do anything about it.
Post by: ozzjim on January 11, 2024, 08:54:09 PM
Post by: AV84 on January 11, 2024, 08:58:00 PM
Post by: lovejoy on January 11, 2024, 09:20:14 PM
I see Newcastle posted losses of £72 million for the year.
But they had headroom because Ashley ran a tight ship which, in hindsight, was a smart move.
Post by: lovejoy on January 11, 2024, 09:21:10 PM
This FFP lark is getting bloody rediculous. Basically, the top 6 can spend what they like, stocked their youth teams with assets to sell. Upwardly mobile clubs have no chance of breaking it long term with one hand tied behind their back.
Yes it’s anything but fair. it’s basically ring fencing for the big teams.
Post by: olaftab on January 11, 2024, 09:21:46 PM
Post by: AV84 on January 11, 2024, 09:23:58 PM
I see Newcastle posted losses of £72 million for the year.
But they had headroom because Ashley ran a tight ship which, in hindsight, was a smart move.
It also didn't include the Champions League money they got, which apparently is on next year's accounts.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 11, 2024, 09:52:15 PM
So are we close to the FFP precipice having lost about £310M is the last 3 accounting years?
When did we sell Joe? We broke even that year didn’t we?
Post by: Villan For Life on January 11, 2024, 10:06:37 PM
So are we close to the FFP precipice having lost about £310M is the last 3 accounting years?
When did we sell Joe? We broke even that year didn’t we?
August 2021
Post by: Chris Harte on January 11, 2024, 10:27:41 PM
This FFP lark is getting bloody rediculous. Basically, the top 6 can spend what they like, stocked their youth teams with assets to sell. Upwardly mobile clubs have no chance of breaking it long term with one hand tied behind their back.Protecting the status-quo is exactly what the Secret Footballer claimed was the purpose of FFP.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 11, 2024, 10:51:50 PM
So are we close to the FFP precipice having lost about £310M is the last 3 accounting years?
When did we sell Joe? We broke even that year didn’t we?
August 2021
Yes, and I think the accounts for that year showed a profit of £421,000.
The year before we made a loss of £37m.
Struggling to find where Aftab got his £310m loss from.
On the plus side (I think) we made a £99m loss the year before that which will (again I think) now disappear from the three-year FFP/P&S accounting period.
Need an accountant to pipe up here to stop me making a fool of myself.
Just for clarity, last three years P&L:
2020 - £99.5m loss
2021 - £37.3m loss
2022 - £400,000 profit.
Don’t forget Covid for those first two years especially.
Post by: eamonn on January 11, 2024, 11:08:41 PM
This FFP lark is getting bloody rediculous. Basically, the top 6 can spend what they like, stocked their youth teams with assets to sell. Upwardly mobile clubs have no chance of breaking it long term with one hand tied behind their back.Protecting the status-quo is exactly what the Secret Footballer claimed was the purpose of FFP.
Dave Kitson? What would he know?! ;)
Post by: sid1964 on January 12, 2024, 07:47:41 AM
FFP is all aimed at protecting the supposed "big 6"
Post by: Ian. on January 12, 2024, 08:04:46 AM
This FFP lark is getting bloody rediculous. Basically, the top 6 can spend what they like, stocked their youth teams with assets to sell. Upwardly mobile clubs have no chance of breaking it long term with one hand tied behind their back.
It does seem more and more obvious it had one objective in mind.
Maybe gone are the days a young local lad can dream to succeed at his local side as he’ll know he will have to be sold off. What a shame that it’s come to this.
Post by: Dave on January 12, 2024, 08:52:28 AM
Maybe gone are the days a young local lad can dream to succeed at his local side as he’ll know he will have to be sold off. What a shame that it’s come to this.
Foden / Saka / Ramsey / Alexander-Arnold / Rashford suggest that they still could.
Our current "one" in Ramsey isn't wildly different to say, our '96 League Cup final side. And we had to buy Taylor. So have things really changed that much? If you're good enough you'll probably play. If you're not, then you'll probably be sold.
Post by: Risso on January 12, 2024, 09:13:49 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 12, 2024, 09:18:34 AM
Post by: Dave on January 12, 2024, 09:25:56 AM
Saying Saka's local to Arsenal is a bit like saying somebody from Dudley is local to Villa, but point taken!
Guess it's all relative. As a Warwickshire kid who considered himself "local to Villa" while growing up, I'm using a very generous 25 mile or so radius so that I squeeze in.
At least I didn't pick Martinelli.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 12, 2024, 09:26:27 AM
Then you're naive. Newcastle have reached their FFP ceiling and may have to sell to reinvest. The likelihood is that at some point we will have to do the same.We're running out of academy players who can be sold for a decent amount so I'm bracing myself for a departure of a big name in the summer.
I'm not.Wouldn't be surprised to see Luiz move on for a big amount.
I would be.
Post by: Monty on January 12, 2024, 09:27:37 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on January 12, 2024, 09:42:40 AM
Who would he go to? I don't know who has the money who'd want him for what we'd ask in order to make it worth it for us to sell. For want of a better sentence.I'm not saying we will specifically sell Luiz nor am I advocating it. But I do think we will have some difficult player decisions to make in the next 12 months or so.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 12, 2024, 09:48:15 AM
Who would he go to? I don't know who has the money who'd want him for what we'd ask in order to make it worth it for us to sell. For want of a better sentence.I'm not saying we will specifically sell Luiz nor am I advocating it. But I do think we will have some difficult player decisions to make in the next 12 months or so.
I shudder to write this, but the one player we have that would command big money and could be replaced more cheaply with the least disruption to the team is...Martinez. Over my dead body.
Post by: aev on January 12, 2024, 09:52:01 AM
Real Madrid, PSG, maybe Barcelona in a few years?
Post by: Dave on January 12, 2024, 09:55:44 AM
Who would he go to? I don't know who has the money who'd want him for what we'd ask in order to make it worth it for us to sell. For want of a better sentence.
As things stand right now, probably nobody - but there are lots of things that can change. There's talk that de Bruyne might go to Saudi Arabia in the summer, leaving Man City a big hole to fill in.
If we crash and burn this season and finish sixth, he might decide he wants out. If we finish second and he scores fifteen goals in the second half of the season then Real Madrid or PSG might decide to throw their entire budget at him.
There's also the does he / doesn't he release clause question which I don't think has ever been definitively answered. If it's £50m then I imagine lots of teams would be interested. If he doesn't have one then as you say, not so many will.
Post by: sid1964 on January 12, 2024, 10:20:16 AM
I would imagine that each summer we may need to sell a player so we can then re-invest in the team
Post by: Villan82 on January 12, 2024, 10:24:02 AM
It is so important that we increase our commercial revenue, to try and keep within FFP rules
I would imagine that each summer we may need to sell a player so we can then re-invest in the team
Which is why the development should have continued as planned!
Post by: Ian. on January 12, 2024, 10:26:22 AM
Maybe gone are the days a young local lad can dream to succeed at his local side as he’ll know he will have to be sold off. What a shame that it’s come to this.
Foden / Saka / Ramsey / Alexander-Arnold / Rashford suggest that they still could.
Our current "one" in Ramsey isn't wildly different to say, our '96 League Cup final side. And we had to buy Taylor. So have things really changed that much? If you're good enough you'll probably play. If you're not, then you'll probably be sold.
Yes but it’s changed again hasn’t it? In very recent times, last summer we’ve sold three players. If this carries on, my point stands, since the emergence of Foden and Saka and our Jacob, FFP is starting to bite more and more.
Post by: Ads on January 12, 2024, 10:28:46 AM
Ignoring inflation for yet more back of a fag packet maths, but £632m Spurs make in 8 years, our £80m net increase is piss in the wind whether it's there or not.
That right there is why a delay makes no material odds to catching our rivals up and why the North does not make any long term sense.
The case for a new ground couldn't be stronger.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 12, 2024, 10:33:04 AM
Post by: sid1964 on January 12, 2024, 10:48:51 AM
May be the reason for the stopping of the North Stand re-development is that the club could not afford to lose the revenue for a few seasons, whilst the stand was being rebuilt
I wonder if the extra seats could be achieved by filling in one of the corners by the North Stand
Newcastle director of football has already told their fans, that they will need to "player trade" in the summer, maybe we will have to do the same
Post by: Risso on January 12, 2024, 10:50:36 AM
£80m over 8 years compared to £79m Spurs make additionally on old WHL, per season.
Ignoring inflation for yet more back of a fag packet maths, but £632m Spurs make in 8 years, our £80m net increase is piss in the wind whether it's there or not.
That right there is why a delay makes no material odds to catching our rivals up and why the North does not make any long term sense.
The case for a new ground couldn't be stronger.
I think it could end up being more than that with European receipts on top, plus summer concerts etc, and also higher ticket prices. I reckon if you did that and the Witton plus corners, you could be looking at en extra £30m a year potentially. Still miles behind Spurs, but a) we'll never be able to charge as much as London clubs and b) it's a damn sight better than doing nothing for 10 years. If we rebuild elsewhere, you've got that massive wait, and would still only have a 60,000 seater stadium that isn't going to bring in as much as Spurs, however good it is.
Post by: Risso on January 12, 2024, 10:51:37 AM
Looks as though Wolves could be the next club that may have a points deduction - it seems so unfair that Chelsea etc.. can spend with no issues regarding FFP
May be the reason for the stopping of the North Stand re-development is that the club could not afford to lose the revenue for a few seasons, whilst the stand was being rebuilt
I wonder if the extra seats could be achieved by filling in one of the corners by the North Stand
Newcastle director of football has already told their fans, that they will need to "player trade" in the summer, maybe we will have to do the same
Loss of revenue due to building a new stand is an allowable "extraordinary cost" for FFP.
Post by: LeeS on January 12, 2024, 10:54:09 AM
Post by: Dave on January 12, 2024, 10:55:22 AM
Maybe gone are the days a young local lad can dream to succeed at his local side as he’ll know he will have to be sold off. What a shame that it’s come to this.
Foden / Saka / Ramsey / Alexander-Arnold / Rashford suggest that they still could.
Our current "one" in Ramsey isn't wildly different to say, our '96 League Cup final side. And we had to buy Taylor. So have things really changed that much? If you're good enough you'll probably play. If you're not, then you'll probably be sold.
Yes but it’s changed again hasn’t it? In very recent times, last summer we’ve sold three players. If this carries on, my point stands, since the emergence of Foden and Saka and our Jacob, FFP is starting to bite more and more.
It definitely helps the FFP situation, but I'd say that it's incidental. We've sold them because other clubs offered us a value that we were happy to accept.
If Archer had properly broken through 18 months ago, displaced Watkins as our starting striker and scored 15 goals last season, we wouldn't have sold him just to make our FFP situation better.
The combination of the youth players we are developing now being better, more valuable and in demand than they were before, and us being better than we were so youth players will find it harder to break into our team mean that we will sell more of them than we did, for more money than we did.
But any that are good enough are still going to end up playing.
Post by: olaftab on January 12, 2024, 12:30:53 PM
# Club 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 3-Year P/L
1 Liverpool -£9.5m £69.1m £7.5m £67.1m
2 Sheffield United £19m £9.6m £17.7m £46.3m
3 Burnley £0.5m £0.2m £31.2m £31.9m
4 West Ham £22.1m -£8.6m £12.3m £25.8m
5 Tottenham -£83.8m £70m £16m £2.2m
6 Man City £2.4m -£44.6m £41.7m -£0.5m
7 Luton Town £3m -£1.9m -£5.9m -£4.8m
8 Newcastle -£26m £77.4m -£70.7m -£19.3m
9 Brentford -£10.3m -£53.2m £25.1m -£38.4m
10 Nottingham Forest -£15.9m -£15.5m -£45.6m -£77m
11 Bournemouth -£60.1m £17m -£55.5m -£98.6m
12 Arsenal -£73.7m £3.3m -£45m -£115.4m
13 Wolves -£21.1m -£112.1m -£19m -£152.2m
14 Crystal Palace -£58m -£75.7m -£24.2m -£157.9m
15 Brighton -£67m -£117.5m £24.1m -£160.4m
16 Fulham -£45.2m -£57.9m -£94.4m -£197.5m
17 Man United -£92.9m -£93.9m -£115.5m -£302.3m
18 Aston Villa -£32.1m -£274.9m £0.4m -£306.6m
19 Chelsea -£145.6m -£142.1m -£121.3m -£409m
20 Everton -£120.9m -£354.8m -£44.7m -£520.4m
As you can see in the table above, nine teams have spent over the permitted three-year loss limit of £105 million, with Everton racking up a scarcily believable loss of over half a billion.
However, the league has shown some flexibility regarding the punishments as the 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons were heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. That said, Everton are under investigation for breaches of FFP rules, although it’s not clear what the potential punishment may be.
During the same period, Liverpool made an overall profit of £67.1million between 2019/20 and 2021/22 which puts them in the healthiest position.
West Ham and Tottenham also made a profit, albeit small ones, over the same time period, while Sheffield United and Burnley recorded positive tallies in each of the seasons accounted for.
Manchester City made profits in 2019/20 and 2021/22 with the club’s three-year rolling total just shy of break-even at -£500k.
2023/24 Financial Fair Play Report
As the table below shows, the 20 clubs that will play in the 2023/24 Premier League campaign made a total combined loss of -£465.8m in 2021/22
A deficit of close to half a billion highlights the giant cost in pursuing glory and in most cases, mere survival.
So, which clubs currently have issues and who is steering clear of possible FFP sanctions?
Everton, who recorded losses in each of the previous six seasons, including a giant £354.8m in 2020/21, were charged with alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play rules in March 2023 and referred to an independent commission.
The Toffees finances appear bleak and the club will likely have to continue shaving a considerable wage bill in order to adhere to FFP regulations.
Manchester City are another club to have been charged after allegedly breaking Financial Fair Play rules around 100 times over a nine-year period, starting in 2009.
In more recent times, the Premier League champions recorded a profit of nearly £42m in 2021/22. Winning the treble in 2023 pocketed the club a further £294m in prize money, according to The Telegraph, which will give City real wriggle room when it comes to further spending to boost their squad.
Chelsea, meanwhile, recorded major losses between 2019/20 and 2021/22, totalling £409m.
During the 2022/23 season, the Blues splurged more than half a billion pounds on players, with 16 new faces costing a total of £585.5m in transfer fees.
However, despite the frantic spending, the club insists they continue to comply with Premier League financial regulations and so there is no FFP issue.
The Stamford Bridge club were able to sign new players without falling foul of FFP regulations due to amortisation which means, rather than spending big in one go, they have spread transfer fees over a number of years and it is these figures that would be used in FFP calculations.
Manchester United have struggled to repeat the success the club enjoyed under Sir Alex Ferguson but have spent more than £1 billion trying.
Now with United in substantial debts – the club recorded a combined loss of £302.3m in the three seasons between 2019 and 2022 – Financial Fair Play is lurking.
Still one of the biggest clubs on the planet, the Red Devils’ revenue dwarfs some Premier League clubs but they must achieve success or cut costs if they are to avoid FFP ramifications.
Newcastle were taken over by Saudi Arabian state-funded new owners in 2021 and were expected to spend big. The Magpies’ accounts covering 2021/22 showed a loss of £70.7 million, a turnover of £180 million and a wages-to-turnover ratio of 94.6%, well above the previous year’s figure of 76.2%.
This sort of financial report, if repeated, would almost certainly see them fall foul of the EPL’s FFP rules. Competing in the Champions League, having qualified in 2023, will increase money coming into the club, however.
In August 2022, Arsenal were reportedly placed on a watchlist by UEFA after 20 clubs across the continent were identified by the football governing body as at risk of breaching FFP regulations in the year 2021-22.
The Gunners made combined losses of -£115.4m across the three seasons but, according to analysts, narrowly stayed within FFP limits.
Liverpool and Tottenham each recorded a profit between 2019/20 and 2021/22 standing the Reds and Spurs in a strong position both in terms of adhering to FFP rules and having the scope to make additions to their team.
West Ham smartly improved their squad and standing in recent seasons, culminating in the Hammers’ Europa Conference League triumph. The club from the capital recorded a total profit of £25.8m in the three seasons starting 2019/20 and will hope to continue their savvy upward trajectory.
Aston Villa recorded a small profit of £400k in 2021/22 after a loss of -£274.9 and will again be buoyed in 2023/24 after qualifying for Europe for the first time since 2010.
Sheffield United and Burnley built on three consecutive seasons of profit by securing automatic promotion to the Premier League a year later.
As recently as April 2022, Championship clubs had a £39million threshold for losses over a three-year period.
Luton Town spent all three seasons in the second tier from August 2019 to May 2022 and recorded a loss of just £4.8m in that time period.
Winning the play-off final, dubbed the richest game in football, by beating Coventry on penalties to earn a place in the top-flight, Luton stand to make at least £170, following their promotion.
Playing in the big time, all three clubs that went up in 2023 will now have to decide how to take the next step. Some promoted sides will spend vast sums on new players in a bid to avoid the drop, while others will try to remain frugal. It is a giant risk that can lead to a great reward but ultimately, FFP is designed so that club’s don’t put their future on the line for immediate success.
Brighton and Brentford were lauded for how they operated during the 2022/23 season. Handed particular kudos for how they recruit, the Seagulls qualified for Europe while the Bees secured a top-ten finish.
Looking at the figures for 2021/22, it is no surprise to see the two clubs make a £25m profit each.
It must be noted Brighton did make an overall loss between 2019 and 2022 but the East Sussex side have already cashed in on one of their main assets heading into the 2023/24 season and look to have a bright future if they continue on the same track.
Bournemouth, who were relegated from the Premier League in 2020 before securing their return two years later, lost nearly £100m during that time.
Fulham, meanwhile, who won the Championship title in 2022, bouncing straight back to the Premier League after being demoted, were in the red by nearly double the amount of the Cherries, recording three consecutive seasonal losses totalling £197.5m.
Nottingham Forest lost a total of £77m during the three seasons leading to their 2022 play-off final triumph which earned them a place in the top-flight. It will be interesting to see the club’s figures for 2022/23 after signing a total of 30 players during their first Premier League campaign in 23 years.
Crystal Palace are now an established Premier League club and the 2023/24 season will be their eleventh consecutive campaign in the top-flight. However, the stay hasn’t come cheaply with the Eagles recording a combined loss of £157.9m between 2019/20 and 2021/22.
Wolves are another club to make consecutive annual losses in recent times. Earning a profit the season they won the Championship title in 2018, the Midlands club have since lost money totalling £152.2million since 2019/20.
As the Premier League competition continues to grow ever fiercer, clubs will have to wrestle with soaring transfer costs while keeping to the parameters FFP imposes in what continues to be a challenging juggling act.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 13, 2024, 12:41:31 AM
Again on the accounts, last three years have been break even, £99m loss, and £37m loss.
Post by: Smirker on January 13, 2024, 03:04:25 AM
Post by: Lastfootstamper on January 13, 2024, 09:13:50 AM
Post by: Beard82 on January 13, 2024, 09:54:33 AM
Also 110m should be higher due to transfer and general inflation.
Finally no one should be subjected to any points deduction until Man City’s thing is resolved 9 years of cheating allegedly. It’s not fair that some clubs should be fined and have deductions while Man City case remains open.
Finally it is anti competitive and causing clubs to make bad long term decisions for accounting reasons
Post by: Gareth on January 13, 2024, 10:59:21 AM
FFP isn’t fit for purpose. It needs a serious revamp and look at things like how finance is funded - is it debt or equity.
Also 110m should be higher due to transfer and general inflation.
Finally no one should be subjected to any points deduction until Man City’s thing is resolved 9 years of cheating allegedly. It’s not fair that some clubs should be fined and have deductions while Man City case remains open.
Finally it is anti competitive and causing clubs to make bad long term decisions for accounting reasons
Agree, but it works as planned for those clubs it was there to protect…won’t change unless by some fluke one of those scumbag clubs who were gonna run off to ESL get caught out (AbuDhabi City don’t count as the others hate them)
Post by: The Edge on January 13, 2024, 11:26:36 AM
Looks as though Wolves could be the next club that may have a points deduction - it seems so unfair that Chelsea etc.. can spend with no issues regarding FFPThe extra seats in the NS corners has been discussed Ad nauseum on the redevelopment thread. You can't do that because of the massive pillars supporting the roof. The roof would need to be removed then infill the corners and put a brand new cantilever roof on. Big job costing millions that would easily take a year to complete. Makes more sense to knock it down and rebuild it but Heck has already put that "on hold"
May be the reason for the stopping of the North Stand re-development is that the club could not afford to lose the revenue for a few seasons, whilst the stand was being rebuilt
I wonder if the extra seats could be achieved by filling in one of the corners by the North Stand
Newcastle director of football has already told their fans, that they will need to "player trade" in the summer, maybe we will have to do the same
Post by: Rigadon on January 13, 2024, 12:28:40 PM
FFP isn’t fit for purpose. It needs a serious revamp and look at things like how finance is funded - is it debt or equity.
Also 110m should be higher due to transfer and general inflation.
Finally no one should be subjected to any points deduction until Man City’s thing is resolved 9 years of cheating allegedly. It’s not fair that some clubs should be fined and have deductions while Man City case remains open.
Finally it is anti competitive and causing clubs to make bad long term decisions for accounting reasons
I agree. That they continue to strut about having 'illegally' spent their way to domination is a farce.
Post by: ozzjim on January 13, 2024, 12:57:11 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 13, 2024, 02:03:06 PM
FFP isn’t fit for purpose. It needs a serious revamp and look at things like how finance is funded - is it debt or equity.
Also 110m should be higher due to transfer and general inflation.
Finally no one should be subjected to any points deduction until Man City’s thing is resolved 9 years of cheating allegedly. It’s not fair that some clubs should be fined and have deductions while Man City case remains open.
Finally it is anti competitive and causing clubs to make bad long term decisions for accounting reasons
But it is working perfectly as designed.
To keep ambitious wealthy clubs like Villa & Newcastle out of the status quo.
Now we are knocking on the door, we are starting to feel the pinch of "FFP" & if the reporting is true, we might have to sell a player to purchase another.
While other clubs who have cheated their way to the current advantage they have now have raised the drawer-bridge.
And the irony of calling the reigns that hold us back from using the same tactic as the clubs holding those reigns, "Financial Fair Play", is not lost on me...
Post by: Toronto Villa on January 13, 2024, 02:28:27 PM
Post by: Beard82 on January 13, 2024, 02:52:03 PM
I completely agree - FFP is only effective in maintaining the status quo. The fact that between them - the sky 6 clubs have over 2bn in debts - and Villa and Newcastle don't really have any makes it even more of a farce.FFP isn’t fit for purpose. It needs a serious revamp and look at things like how finance is funded - is it debt or equity.
Also 110m should be higher due to transfer and general inflation.
Finally no one should be subjected to any points deduction until Man City’s thing is resolved 9 years of cheating allegedly. It’s not fair that some clubs should be fined and have deductions while Man City case remains open.
Finally it is anti competitive and causing clubs to make bad long term decisions for accounting reasons
But it is working perfectly as designed.
To keep ambitious wealthy clubs like Villa & Newcastle out of the status quo.
Now we are knocking on the door, we are starting to feel the pinch of "FFP" & if the reporting is true, we might have to sell a player to purchase another.
While other clubs who have cheated their way to the current advantage they have now have raised the drawer-bridge.
And the irony of calling the reigns that hold us back from using the same tactic as the clubs holding those reigns, "Financial Fair Play", is not lost on me...
Post by: Beard82 on January 13, 2024, 02:58:17 PM
We need to expand our revenues to offset the pinch. Something Heck has been brought in to do. And while some the tactics being employed look clumsy in the short term, like the ground delays, hopefully the long term is much larger global footprint of our “brand” coupled with success on the pitch. We bring in more we can keep our top players for longer. And finding those kids and selling them on is also a big part of the plan. Don’t get attached to any of our academy unless they are truly sensational and break into the first team. Because chances are they will be sold.yes - and if you look at all the global partnerships they have created by investing in teams in other countries demonstrates that they have a long term plan with selling prospects as a key revenue source
Post by: Gareth on January 14, 2024, 08:29:12 PM
Post by: Villafirst on January 14, 2024, 08:46:13 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on January 14, 2024, 08:49:34 PM
Seems Everton and Forest are expecting to be charged with breaches of P&S rules tomorrow according to The Athletic
Everton again? Blimey
Post by: Risso on January 14, 2024, 08:59:30 PM
Hopefully Man City's 115 FFP breaches really hits them hard. Why is it taking so long to get a verdict? They'll probably overturn a fair few breaches, but 115? I doubt it.......
Christ knows. Just punish them and let them appeal afterwards. From League 2.
Post by: Gareth on January 14, 2024, 09:02:22 PM
Hopefully Man City's 115 FFP breaches really hits them hard. Why is it taking so long to get a verdict? They'll probably overturn a fair few breaches, but 115? I doubt it.......115 may be the issue…Everton was a single breach, you’d assume if Everton and Forest are charged it’ll be a single breach again so fairly black and white with an appeal…gonna take 3/4 years for Abu Dhabi with multiple trophies won in that time no doubt
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 14, 2024, 09:14:36 PM
Hopefully Man City's 115 FFP breaches really hits them hard. Why is it taking so long to get a verdict? They'll probably overturn a fair few breaches, but 115? I doubt it.......
Christ knows. Just punish them and let them appeal afterwards. From League 2.
And place them in a complete transfer ban while they refuse to give documents & slow down the process with high priced lawyers...
Post by: eamonn on January 14, 2024, 11:53:11 PM
Post by: AV84 on January 15, 2024, 12:01:09 AM
Post by: sid1964 on January 15, 2024, 06:53:26 AM
Hopefully we will be okay.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 15, 2024, 07:17:38 AM
Post by: Gareth on January 15, 2024, 07:50:05 AM
Was Everton's takeover ever approved or completed? Could they end up in real trouble from all this?
Sure I read somewhere that they were not confident that the takeover would be ratified…takes something to fail a PL fit and proper test lol….which would be interesting as they took another 50m loan from them the other week
Post by: Nunkin1965 on January 15, 2024, 08:05:25 AM
Yes there's a piece in The Athletic about 777 and it's not a good reading if you're an Everton fan.Was Everton's takeover ever approved or completed? Could they end up in real trouble from all this?
Sure I read somewhere that they were not confident that the takeover would be ratified…takes something to fail a PL fit and proper test lol….which would be interesting as they took another 50m loan from them the other week
Just wish I was clever enough to post the link or whatever you do!
Post by: Dave P on January 15, 2024, 08:54:23 AM
Post by: Ads on January 15, 2024, 08:55:06 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 15, 2024, 09:04:38 AM
Can Everton be punished again? 10 points was already unprecedented at this level so I presume it would be a heavy fine which doesn't really help them get their house in order. Locking them out of transfer windows for a year or two wouldn't make much difference as they don't have anything to spend anyway.
Yes they can. Different charge to the last one at a guess. Derby had two points deductions in the same season when the Saviour of St Andrews was there, one for Admin and then the second for the dodgy books.
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 09:22:47 AM
Nah
I dunno man, Stockley Park are still checking to see if Bailey's toe is over the FFP threshold, and if they can't prove it they'll move onto something else.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 15, 2024, 09:25:05 AM
But without it we'd now have a second 'Man City' situation with Newcastle and Chelsea could spend another billion if they wanted to.
I really hate it as a concept, particularly as it's us knocking at the door, but would allowing Necastle to dominate alongside Man City for the next 10 years be any more palatable?
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 09:28:56 AM
It's clear that FFP pulls up the drawbridge and it does it brilliantly.
But without it we'd now have a second 'Man City' situation with Newcastle and Chelsea could spend another billion if they wanted to.
I really hate it as a concept, particularly as it's us knocking at the door, but would allowing Necastle to dominate alongside Man City for the next 10 years be any more palatable?
It's a good point. The problem is it actually seems to be working in the way it's 'intended', not just as the drawbridge puller upper, but getting teams to live within their means.
I'm forever seeing our friends down the road moaning about it for instance (like it's holding them back from world dominance), but without it in the Championship that previous lot would have taken them to the wall.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 15, 2024, 09:52:23 AM
And this is why Heck (and Purslow before) are having to start squeezing the pips.
As for ground redevelopment, I can see both sides. Would the North make enough of a difference? Well, possibly not, but it's the shortest-term solution to at least give some more FFP room while we have a generational manager on board. The alternative means Emery won't really get significant extra financial assistance over and above what he generates with his own success. For me that's disappointing. The chances are by the time any new stadium is out the ground we'll have run our race and be back somewhere between 6-12th.
Post by: Risso on January 15, 2024, 10:08:47 AM
So the only way you can really disrupt is to have a manager who is capable of getting a team punching above their weight and at the same time do what you can to close the financial gap. Us and Brighton (and arguably Newcastle) have the former. The next step is to increase revenue. Newcastle have more opportunity with their larger stadium and no doubt the will be some 'in-house' sponsoring shenanigans.
And this is why Heck (and Purslow before) are having to start squeezing the pips.
As for ground redevelopment, I can see both sides. Would the North make enough of a difference? Well, possibly not, but it's the shortest-term solution to at least give some more FFP room while we have a generational manager on board. The alternative means Emery won't really get significant extra financial assistance over and above what he generates with his own success. For me that's disappointing. The chances are by the time any new stadium is out the ground we'll have run our race and be back somewhere between 6-12th.
We're competing against teams who have both Champions League money and much bigger grounds. Hopefully the Champions League issue will be sorted this season, but as Chelsea are finding because you have it one year, it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed income forever. As it stands, we're stuck with our nice but inadequate stadium for years now.
Post by: Clive W on January 15, 2024, 10:25:56 AM
Probably a very hypothetical question for the architects among us
Post by: Clive W on January 15, 2024, 10:27:53 AM
Post by: Smithy on January 15, 2024, 10:30:13 AM
Just as a matter of interest, based on the current restrictions of the surrounding area, and assuming limitless funds, what would be the potential capacity of VP?
Probably a very hypothetical question for the architects among us
"Current restrictions" is the thing. Everything has a price. With limitless funds you could throw money at properties/infrastructure to remove any restrictions.
Post by: Clive W on January 15, 2024, 10:37:58 AM
Just as a matter of interest, based on the current restrictions of the surrounding area, and assuming limitless funds, what would be the potential capacity of VP?
Probably a very hypothetical question for the architects among us
"Current restrictions" is the thing. Everything has a price. With limitless funds you could throw money at properties/infrastructure to remove any restrictions.
Fair point
So based on current restrictions then - assuming we don’t have the time or money to buy up the surrounding area
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 15, 2024, 10:39:50 AM
Post by: AV82EC on January 15, 2024, 11:01:18 AM
Villa set to be charged today for incurring losses of £105,001,634 over the three year period to 2022-23. Okay I’ve made that up but today is the day we will find out along with others whether any charges are coming.
If the three year losses are £105m then we should be fine as the limit is £105m over the 3 years so we’re bang on the money for allowable losses.
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 11:07:11 AM
Post by: Risso on January 15, 2024, 11:08:55 AM
Post by: Ads on January 15, 2024, 11:58:29 AM
We'll get a 20 point deduction for the £1634, with some new rule that nobody has perviously heard about enforced, like we spent too much on 'Tassimo' coffee pods when the Premier League partner was 'Nespresso'.
Coffee pods?! Hark at Mr Fancy Pants. The B stands for bourgeois.
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 12:02:10 PM
We'll get a 20 point deduction for the £1634, with some new rule that nobody has perviously heard about enforced, like we spent too much on 'Tassimo' coffee pods when the Premier League partner was 'Nespresso'.
Coffee pods?! Hark at Mr Fancy Pants. The B stands for bourgeois.
Fuck off!
I only use fresh coffee I grind myself, thank you very much. We had one of those things where I used to work, once there were only the '10' strength pods left, it felt like I'd been dosed with Pervitin.
Post by: Risso on January 15, 2024, 12:43:01 PM
We'll get a 20 point deduction for the £1634, with some new rule that nobody has perviously heard about enforced, like we spent too much on 'Tassimo' coffee pods when the Premier League partner was 'Nespresso'.
Coffee pods?! Hark at Mr Fancy Pants. The B stands for bourgeois.
Fuck off!
I only use fresh coffee I grind myself, thank you very much. We had one of those things where I used to work, once there were only the '10' strength pods left, it felt like I'd been dosed with Pervitin.
You think that grinding fresh coffee is LESS middle class?!
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 12:44:29 PM
Post by: Dave P on January 15, 2024, 01:20:22 PM
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 01:25:59 PM
I've had a Dowue Egberts jar for a while now and I fill it with instant granules from Lidl. What does that make me?
False class conscious.
Post by: Rigadon on January 15, 2024, 03:32:24 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 15, 2024, 04:00:45 PM
Is there supposed to be some sort of announcement on FFP today?. I’m sure I read that somewhere.
Apparently, Everton & Nottingham Forest being sent to some independent commission, or something.
Fuck all about Chelsea or ManC though.
Someone mentioned it the other day, there should be a transfer ban on any club that refuses documents & purposefully slows down the process, while utilising all of the advantages they gained by being cheating c**ts...
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 04:04:41 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 15, 2024, 04:06:40 PM
That was me. People liked it so I'm owning that one, the Shed Seven view not so popular.
It was a great shout & you should be proud to shout about it from the rooftops...
Post by: Rigadon on January 15, 2024, 04:22:13 PM
Post by: Rigadon on January 15, 2024, 04:22:46 PM
Post by: AV84 on January 15, 2024, 04:28:27 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 15, 2024, 04:46:38 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on January 15, 2024, 04:50:26 PM
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on January 15, 2024, 04:51:19 PM
Post by: London Villan on January 15, 2024, 04:52:30 PM
Post by: Villan82 on January 15, 2024, 04:52:59 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 15, 2024, 04:54:08 PM
This in many ways is more worrying.
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 04:55:15 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on January 15, 2024, 05:01:05 PM
I think it is Ludacris to let Chelsea and Man City buy the success they have bought in the past 20 years and then throw the book at clubs Like Forest and Everton
Well they haven’t have they? Citeh have 115 charges, which annoyingly means it’s taking a long time to conclude. But presumably they will have the book thrown at them.
Post by: nick harper on January 15, 2024, 05:05:47 PM
Coupled with the VAR chaos and the joy being sucked out of being at the game, it’s just alienating people. Also, just reading what that Reading owner is doing to the club and the despair of their fans - it’s really grim. The authorities do nothing to protect clubs from really terrible owners.
Post by: brontebilly on January 15, 2024, 05:07:15 PM
Forest's business just seems gratuitous, there's got to be something else going on there. I've no idea what though, Greek shipping magnates are known worldwide for their unimpeachable character.
Their business since coming up to the PL has stunk. Charlatans like Lingard, Shelvey and Aurier been given insane wages. In hindsight they would have been better off giving Cooper a more modest budget and gradually improve the team.
Post by: Meanwood Villa on January 15, 2024, 05:09:20 PM
Forest's business just seems gratuitous, there's got to be something else going on there. I've no idea what though, Greek shipping magnates are known worldwide for their unimpeachable character.
Their business since coming up to the PL has stunk. Charlatans like Lingard, Shelvey and Aurier been given insane wages. In hindsight they would have been better off giving Cooper a more modest budget and gradually improve the team.
And might have gone down after a season. I understood why they did it but thought they must have been at least aware of FFP.
Post by: Dave P on January 15, 2024, 05:10:06 PM
That was me. People liked it so I'm owning that one, the Shed Seven view not so popular.
I missed this. What was your Shed Seven view?
Post by: frank black on January 15, 2024, 05:11:08 PM
Some of the argument's that Forest and Everton have come up with are nonsense.
I’ve seen Evertons arguments and they are tenuous to say the least. They knew their situation but didn’t sell player/s to rectify it, when they had the chance.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 15, 2024, 05:11:17 PM
It just feels like football is starting to lose its way. I get there needs to be financial rules to protect clubs from themselves to an extent, but the authorities are creating chaotic situations. There’s every chance appeals to any deductions will have to be heard after the season has ended.You make some good points. I think the success of the Pl has outstripped the competence of the people running it. They are patently not fit for purpose, out of their depth with a whiff of corruption about them.
Coupled with the VAR chaos and the joy being sucked out of being at the game, it’s just alienating people. Also, just reading what that Reading owner is doing to the club and the despair of their fans - it’s really grim. The authorities do nothing to protect clubs from really terrible owners.
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 05:11:42 PM
That was me. People liked it so I'm owning that one, the Shed Seven view not so popular.
I missed this. What was your Shed Seven view?
It's in the transfer thread of course.
Post by: eamonn on January 15, 2024, 05:17:20 PM
For all Purslow's faults, he managed to keep the FFP inspectors happy - as he was involved in writing most of the rules!
Christian in happier times (er, yesterday) with Villa fans in Elephant & Castle:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD0d9C8WgAAQtG7?format=jpg&name=large)
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 15, 2024, 05:18:37 PM
Post by: Dave P on January 15, 2024, 05:19:07 PM
That was me. People liked it so I'm owning that one, the Shed Seven view not so popular.
I missed this. What was your Shed Seven view?
It's in the transfer thread of course.
Found it and commented!
Post by: eamonn on January 15, 2024, 05:21:20 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 15, 2024, 05:22:22 PM
From the BBC.
Post by: Villan82 on January 15, 2024, 05:33:53 PM
City were charged in February 2023 with over 100 offences relating to their spending, which date back to 2009 and include allegations of hidden payments and non-co-operation. It is thought unlikely there will be a resolution until the end of the 2024-25 season.
From the BBC.
I won't hold my breadth but I want the book thrown at Man City in particular. Our fortunes were negatively impacted by what changed at that club in 2009.
Post by: Smithy on January 15, 2024, 05:36:36 PM
Some of the argument's that Forest and Everton have come up with are nonsense.
I’ve seen Evertons arguments and they are tenuous to say the least. They knew their situation but didn’t sell player/s to rectify it, when they had the chance.
Isn't Forest's argument that they were always going to sell Brennan Johnson to balance the books in the window just gone, but that selling him by 30 June would have meant a lower transfer fee due to it being a panic sale? I mean, I have some sympathy with them if that's the case, but only because it made that twat at Spurs pay more than he wanted to - but the 30th June deadline is there for a reason. If you spend heavily and everyone knows you need to sell a homegrown player by the 30th June, I don't think you should be allowed to simply ignore that deadline just because you think you can get a bit more money a month or two later.
I suspect that argument is being used not to reverse the FFP decision, but to try and make sure it a fine, rather than points deduction. 10 points off Forest would leave them in proper trouble. They might be happier paying a big fine, maybe even equal to the difference between what they got for Johnson vs what they would have got selling him on 30th June.
Post by: Villan82 on January 15, 2024, 05:39:15 PM
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 05:39:35 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
I was in the wrong Irish pub in town trying to meet Percy when that happened, which is now immortalised in his book.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 15, 2024, 06:12:31 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
Thank you. Looks half decent.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 15, 2024, 06:19:04 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
Which one are you, Eamonn?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 15, 2024, 06:20:44 PM
City were charged in February 2023 with over 100 offences relating to their spending, which date back to 2009 and include allegations of hidden payments and non-co-operation. It is thought unlikely there will be a resolution until the end of the 2024-25 season.
From the BBC.
I won't hold my breadth but I want the book thrown at Man City in particular. Our fortunes were negatively impacted by what changed at that club in 2009.
I held my breadth once. I was told to vacate the pool I was in and to return to the adults' swimming zone. Lost the deposit on my locker and all sorts.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 15, 2024, 06:21:20 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak.
Sounds like it should be an Everton pub.
Post by: gpbarr on January 15, 2024, 06:21:26 PM
Some of the argument's that Forest and Everton have come up with are nonsense.
I’ve seen Evertons arguments and they are tenuous to say the least. They knew their situation but didn’t sell player/s to rectify it, when they had the chance.
Isn't Forest's argument that they were always going to sell Brennan Johnson to balance the books in the window just gone, but that selling him by 30 June would have meant a lower transfer fee due to it being a panic sale? I mean, I have some sympathy with them if that's the case, but only because it made that twat at Spurs pay more than he wanted to - but the 30th June deadline is there for a reason. If you spend heavily and everyone knows you need to sell a homegrown player by the 30th June, I don't think you should be allowed to simply ignore that deadline just because you think you can get a bit more money a month or two later.
I suspect that argument is being used not to reverse the FFP decision, but to try and make sure it a fine, rather than points deduction. 10 points off Forest would leave them in proper trouble. They might be happier paying a big fine, maybe even equal to the difference between what they got for Johnson vs what they would have got selling him on 30th June.
i think all clubs outside the so called Big 6 should see the alarm bells ringing here. The FFP rules as they stand are weighed hugely in favor those at the top with big revenue streams - its rather interesting that we have now seen Everton, Forest, and Everton again charged yet, gone 'crickets' re City. I take no pleasure seeing proud clubs charged ans fined in this way while Chelsea (a great example) get away with it. Everyone should be looking over their shulder and I suspect (though absoliteluy no evidence) its why we are not seeing much activity in the January market outside those same top 6
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 15, 2024, 06:22:06 PM
For all Purslow's faults, he managed to keep the FFP inspectors happy - as he was involved in writing most of the rules!
Christian in happier times (er, yesterday) with Villa fans in Elephant & Castle:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD0d9C8WgAAQtG7?format=jpg&name=large)
He's one of our own, he's one of our owwnnn,
Christian Purslow, he's one of our own!
Post by: Somniloquism on January 15, 2024, 06:58:37 PM
i think all clubs outside the so called Big 6 should see the alarm bells ringing here. The FFP rules as they stand are weighed hugely in favor those at the top with big revenue streams - its rather interesting that we have now seen Everton, Forest, and Everton again charged yet, gone 'crickets' re City. I take no pleasure seeing proud clubs charged ans fined in this way while Chelsea (a great example) get away with it. Everyone should be looking over their shulder and I suspect (though absoliteluy no evidence) its why we are not seeing much activity in the January market outside those same top 6
There are the charges made in public, the hearings are heard behind closed doors and then we have the findings of the hearings published. I doubt any other club has been charged as many times as Citeh and the nature of the charges means they all need to be judged on before a punishment can be dealt.
On an individual level, Toney was an example of this. Charged in November with 232 charges of betting. He challenged some of these and accepted others. As the amount of charges proven would affect the punishment (and especially as the ones he challenged were the more controversial ones involving his own teams at the time), the whole lot had to be judged on before he finally got a ban and that took five months with no specific lawyers involved really obfuscating the evidence. It also took longer as during the process, more betting proof was also found which laid more charges.
I would love for the FA to give individual smaller punishments as charges are found proven, but then Citeh might appeal that the release of this publically could affect other panels decisions. I believe Toney argued that when some details were leaked by the press that he admitted some charges.
Edit: Also remember Chelsea did have a transfer ban or two during the last couple of years with Abramovich so that almost reset the FFP. But they were also one of the first teams to do get loads of youngsters in and sell for FFP profit, or loan them out to reduce FFP wages, or offer 8 year contracts to reduce the FFP over the three year period. (I believe UEFA stopped that but the PL voted to allow to continue or vice versa).
Post by: exiled on the wirral! on January 15, 2024, 07:31:27 PM
Despite the fact he is a Liverpool fan..For all Purslow's faults, he managed to keep the FFP inspectors happy - as he was involved in writing most of the rules!
Christian in happier times (er, yesterday) with Villa fans in Elephant & Castle:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD0d9C8WgAAQtG7?format=jpg&name=large)
He's one of our own, he's one of our owwnnn,
Christian Purslow, he's one of our own!
Post by: LeeB on January 15, 2024, 07:40:41 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 15, 2024, 07:43:51 PM
Our boy's jeans have seen better days, for sure.
Is he the fella wearing Keith Weller tights under his jeans?
Post by: VillaTim on January 15, 2024, 07:45:49 PM
Post by: eamonn on January 15, 2024, 07:47:06 PM
is Purslow having some sort of late mid-life crisis
I think he just likes dogs and the Villa. He must be bored.
Post by: KevinGage on January 15, 2024, 07:48:27 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
There used to be a whole Box Park-style set up there when I would go circa 2018. Seen the Scottish Cafu bag his first solo goal of the season against Hull and the place went nuts.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 15, 2024, 11:00:09 PM
I think it is Ludacris to let Chelsea and Man City buy the success they have bought in the past 20 years and then throw the book at clubs Like Forest and Everton
Yeah, they should tell Forest & Everton to move, bitch, get out the way, and then throw the book at Chelsea and Man Cheaty.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 15, 2024, 11:03:24 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
I was in the wrong Irish pub in town trying to meet Percy when that happened, which is now immortalised in his book.
I remember it well.
Post by: Risso on January 16, 2024, 09:11:01 AM
i think all clubs outside the so called Big 6 should see the alarm bells ringing here. The FFP rules as they stand are weighed hugely in favor those at the top with big revenue streams - its rather interesting that we have now seen Everton, Forest, and Everton again charged yet, gone 'crickets' re City. I take no pleasure seeing proud clubs charged ans fined in this way while Chelsea (a great example) get away with it. Everyone should be looking over their shulder and I suspect (though absoliteluy no evidence) its why we are not seeing much activity in the January market outside those same top 6
There are the charges made in public, the hearings are heard behind closed doors and then we have the findings of the hearings published. I doubt any other club has been charged as many times as Citeh and the nature of the charges means they all need to be judged on before a punishment can be dealt.
On an individual level, Toney was an example of this. Charged in November with 232 charges of betting. He challenged some of these and accepted others. As the amount of charges proven would affect the punishment (and especially as the ones he challenged were the more controversial ones involving his own teams at the time), the whole lot had to be judged on before he finally got a ban and that took five months with no specific lawyers involved really obfuscating the evidence. It also took longer as during the process, more betting proof was also found which laid more charges.
I would love for the FA to give individual smaller punishments as charges are found proven, but then Citeh might appeal that the release of this publically could affect other panels decisions. I believe Toney argued that when some details were leaked by the press that he admitted some charges.
Edit: Also remember Chelsea did have a transfer ban or two during the last couple of years with Abramovich so that almost reset the FFP. But they were also one of the first teams to do get loads of youngsters in and sell for FFP profit, or loan them out to reduce FFP wages, or offer 8 year contracts to reduce the FFP over the three year period. (I believe UEFA stopped that but the PL voted to allow to continue or vice versa).
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 16, 2024, 09:19:21 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 16, 2024, 09:31:58 AM
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
Until the PL change their rulings to allow any claim to be automatically guilty and banned and then appealed, I doubt that would happen. I'm just happy to let the process pay out and then bitch at the end of it. Bitching in the middle is silly when nothing is going to change.
Post by: Smithy on January 16, 2024, 09:46:53 AM
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
Until the PL change their rulings to allow any claim to be automatically guilty and banned and then appealed, I doubt that would happen. I'm just happy to let the process pay out and then bitch at the end of it. Bitching in the middle is silly when nothing is going to change.
I actually don't mind clubs being able to appeal if they genuinely think they have a case to defend, but make it like red cards. You can accept the punishment, or you can appeal. BUT - if you appeal and lose, you're going to get an additional punishment. So you can drag it out if you want to, but do it knowing that the consequences will be very real indeed.
Post by: Rigadon on January 16, 2024, 09:48:50 AM
It could end up with 2 or the 3 teams relegated being able to appeal after the season has ended. Total mess. While the biggest culprits and beneficiaries (how many titles now?) swagger about for a mother season or 2.
Post by: Vegas on January 16, 2024, 09:53:57 AM
Seeing Everton and Forest punished for trying to compete, and seeing us and Newcastle making £8m bids while Chelsea in mid table wave around £100m transfer fees, just illustrates how mis-titled FFP is. It’s anything but fair.
And then when a big spender does fall foul, there’s an interminable legal process and allegedly government discussions with their state owner.
Post by: aj2k77 on January 16, 2024, 10:29:01 AM
It's boring to me. Incredibly boring. Every goal seems checked upon and a delay. It's not for me.
Post by: sid1964 on January 16, 2024, 10:33:28 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on January 16, 2024, 10:35:54 AM
This is “falling out of love with football” territory for me.
Seeing Everton and Forest punished for trying to compete, and seeing us and Newcastle making £8m bids while Chelsea in mid table wave around £100m transfer fees, just illustrates how mis-titled FFP is. It’s anything but fair.
And then when a big spender does fall foul, there’s an interminable legal process and allegedly government discussions with their state owner.
I’m still not convinced Chelsea are quite as clever as they think they are, even if they’ve had some academy players to sell. These FFP sanctions would have been an accounting period prior to most of their big signings wouldn’t they? Could well be wrong there.
Post by: Ads on January 16, 2024, 10:38:18 AM
Post by: Monty on January 16, 2024, 10:39:04 AM
Post by: ian c. on January 16, 2024, 10:47:12 AM
Chelsea aren't getting Champions League football anytime soon and these daft deals will tighten the noose on future spend. Add in a severe punishment and hopefully that's the last we see of these despicable ******.
What happened with the 1.5B in loans that Abramovich wrote off?
Post by: Rigadon on January 16, 2024, 10:50:41 AM
Post by: Ads on January 16, 2024, 10:52:31 AM
I think it all raises the likelihood of a breakaway league to be honest. These clubs will be using that threat as a means to minimise their risk
If you're Liverpool or Man United, fat on the tourist dollar, seeing a Chelsea or a Man City (preferably both) punished so hard they are effectively wiped out for the foreseeable, then why would you do anything to assist?
Post by: Rigadon on January 16, 2024, 10:57:39 AM
I think it all raises the likelihood of a breakaway league to be honest. These clubs will be using that threat as a means to minimise their risk
If you're Liverpool or Man United, fat on the tourist dollar, seeing a Chelsea or a Man City (preferably both) punished so hard they are effectively wiped out for the foreseeable, then why would you do anything to assist?
Not being left behind in a massive £ spinner maybe? But I take your point.
Post by: ROBBO on January 16, 2024, 11:02:14 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 16, 2024, 11:03:43 AM
Post by: LeeB on January 16, 2024, 11:35:50 AM
I think it all raises the likelihood of a breakaway league to be honest. These clubs will be using that threat as a means to minimise their risk
If you're Liverpool or Man United, fat on the tourist dollar, seeing a Chelsea or a Man City (preferably both) punished so hard they are effectively wiped out for the foreseeable, then why would you do anything to assist?
For all their faults you'd think if the Jaudis are playing by the rules they'll be pushing hard behind the scenes to fuck those that haven't.
Post by: Drummond on January 16, 2024, 02:05:45 PM
Which pub is that?
Feed The Yak. Pretty sure it's on one of the new/gentrified streets near the train station. I was there for the Newcastle game on the opening day of the season.
Villa Lions used to meet in a smaller shack nearby, I remember going mental there when Lansbury (?!) scored an equaliser at Elland Road a few years ago when we were in the Ch'shit.
I was in the wrong Irish pub in town trying to meet Percy when that happened, which is now immortalised in his book.
I remember it well.
I should think so, you wrote it! ;)
Post by: Smithy on January 16, 2024, 02:34:09 PM
Don't forget Chelsea still have the 8 year contracts to fall back on as I believe the rule change was only voted through in December and only affects new or extended contracts. So up until the summer, the players essentially cost half as much for FFP purposes compared to the standard 4 year contract. (I'm sure financially it isn't that simple and I'm just taking Amortising something over 8 years instead of 4 meaning costs are smaller for FFP).
Although it will definitely have helped them avoid FFP issues in the short-term, it's definitely fucking them over in the longer term. They'll still be paying £50-60m per year in their FFP numbers for the likes of Mudryk, Caicedo, Fernandes, Fofano and Curcurella in the year 2030. And that's not ALL of them. It's probably £70m+ if you include all of their long-term contract signings.
That's a MASSIVE hole to plug each and every season for the next six or seven years. They will start every season at -£70m on their transfer dealings. It's the equivalent of every single penny from their match-day revenue, every year, just going to service their FFP "debt". If they miss European football entirely this season, which looks likely, I can see a bit of a firesale going on there in the summer.
The thing they have in their favour, is a sizeable commercial operation built around 20 years of post-Abramovic success. But all that extra commercial revenue doesn't continue indefinitely when you're not competing at the top end of the table. For example, they got one-year shirt sponsorship deal worth £40m for this season. There is no way in hell it'll be a similar number next year.
Post by: Villa in Denmark on January 16, 2024, 07:30:13 PM
Manchester City charges: Premier League says date has been set for hearing - (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67993371)
Post by: eamonn on January 16, 2024, 07:57:05 PM
Post by: Chap on January 16, 2024, 08:06:46 PM
Post by: eamonn on January 16, 2024, 08:48:11 PM
Post by: Chap on January 16, 2024, 09:07:58 PM
Post by: KRS on January 16, 2024, 09:09:57 PM
Post by: Risso on January 16, 2024, 09:10:37 PM
Post by: KRS on January 16, 2024, 09:14:38 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on January 17, 2024, 01:35:34 AM
If they do actually have one (which I doubt is set in stone even if they do), then may be they know that they would face even further vocal criticism from clubs, fans and media if it was revealed that it wasn’t going to be anytime soon or even in 2024.
If Forest and Everton are handed out punishments (the latter for the second time) I think the clamour for action against Manchester City will grow a lot louder.
Post by: Louzie0 on January 17, 2024, 01:48:56 AM
With 115 accusations against them, why are other clubs being docked points and fined, while they are sailing along, apparently untroubled by anything related to these allegations?
Whenever the date is, I hope it’s coming up this season.
Post by: The Edge on January 17, 2024, 03:27:38 AM
Whenever sanctions for FFP are brought up in the news, my first thought is, ‘What about Manchester City?’The answer is simple. Man City, or should I say the extremely wealthy Arabs that own them, have can afford the best legal team on the planet and to quote an intercepted internal email that the German sports paper who investigated them in the first place printed "do whatever you need to do to make us the most successful team in the world, we can buy ourselves out of any situation and our legal team will tie them up in so many knots it will take years to carry out an investigation" Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back. By comparison the likes of Everton and Forest are just sitting ducks.
With 115 accusations against them, why are other clubs being docked points and fined, while they are sailing along, apparently untroubled by anything related to these allegations?
Whenever the date is, I hope it’s coming up this season.
Post by: Drummond on January 17, 2024, 09:19:32 AM
Post by: Olneythelonely on January 17, 2024, 09:23:04 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 17, 2024, 09:29:53 AM
And. I'd imagine broadcasters have all been reminded by those same lawyers not to even dare hint at a suggestion of guilt.Yes, it’s amazing how complicit they have been.
Post by: Dave on January 17, 2024, 10:09:12 AM
(https://www.football365.com/news/feature-ffp-man-city-115-charges-explained-nottingham-forest-everton-chelsea-premier-league)
Quote
Nottingham Forest
Let’s start simple(ish) and ease ourselves in…
Forest, along with Everton (more on that in a bit) have been charged with breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules. Not only have they been charged; they have admitted to it.
Profit and Sustainability Rules – the Premier League’s FFP – dictate that clubs cannot make losses of more than £105million over a three-season period, or £35million per season. But Forest haven’t been in the Premier League for the last three seasons. So they are judged against a combination of Football League and Premier League rules which mean they could not make a loss exceeding £61million over the same period.
Forest always appeared vulnerable after chucking around £250million on more than 40 players – largely dross – since being promoted in 2022. But, as part of their mitigation, the club will highlight that they were only in breach for two months.
Their excuse: They held on to Brennan Johnson beyond the end of the accounting period (June 30, 2023) to secure a higher price for their academy graduate. They will also argue that the accounting period should run to the end of the transfer window – which may be a valid point, but they knew the rules.
The fact Johnson is home grown means he represents pure profit for the sake of the books. Forest received offers of between £30million and £35million before the end of June – Brentford were one of the clubs to submit a written bid – but those were rejected in the expectation of higher offers being received before the end of the window. Which turned out to be true. Tottenham agreed to pay £47.5million on September 1.
Will that wash with the Premier League? It hasn’t so far. Forest were in communication with the authorities throughout the summer to keep them abreast of their plan, but being honest about it doesn’t necessarily excuse breaking clear rules.
It is now up to an independent commission to decide what punishment, if any, Forest might face. A fine and a points deduction are possible.
Forest have 14 days from January 15 to respond to the charges before an independent commission hears their case. That process, which could take anything from one to five days, must be completed by early April.
If Forest were to appeal the judgement, it must be heard by the Premier League by May 24 – five days after the final day of the season. So we could have a scenario where the season concludes without clarity on final standings or which division clubs might occupy next term. That’ll be fun, won’t it?
Everton
Like Forest, Everton have been referred by the Premier League to an independent commission for breaching PSR. Sound familiar?
Of course it does. Everton have already lost 10 points this season as punishment for breaching PSR in the three years up to June 30, 2022. That judgement, “wholly disproportionate” and “unjust” according to the Toffees, is currently being appealed by the club. That appeal will be heard by an independent appeals commission – a different panel from the original commission.
When? F*** knows. Premier League chief exec Richard Masters said: “It doesn’t really matter when it happens as long as it happens in the season, and it will happen in this season.”
Why do Everton find themselves facing two possible punishments inside the same season? Because the Premier League changed its rules in the wake of their handling of Everton’s 2021-22 case. The process was speeded up to deal with breaches within the same season, putting the Toffees in a uniquely s*** position. A point their lawyers will focus on, you would expect.
They are also likely to make a double jeopardy argument – that Everton are being punished twice for what is much the same period. But the rules around compliance over three-year cycles are clear.
Once the first judgement was passed down for the period up to June 2022, Everton were immediately in trouble for the most recent accounting period. The independent commission that docked them 10 points sided with the Premier League by ruling that £17.4million worth of interest payments for their new stadium project should be included in their PSR calculations, after Everton had argued that they should not. As we know, that verdict is subject to appeal, but until that is ruled upon, Everton had to submit their latest accounts including those interest payments, which appears to have put them in breach again.
What next then? Everton’s appeal over the first verdict will be heard first, one would assume, since it could impact on how the most recent accounting period – for which they have just been charged – is measured.
For the second breach, the timeline is the same as Forest’s. An independent commission – separate to Forest’s – will rule before early April,. with any appeal perhaps stretching into the week after the end of the season.
Chelsea
Last August, the Premier League announced an investigation into Chelsea for potential financial rule breaches during Roman Abramovich’s ownership of the club.
The Blues reported themselves, as they did to UEFA, who in July 2023 fined the club £8.6m for “submitting incomplete financial information” between 2012 and 2019.
Chelsea’s new ownership took the steps after uncovering possible issues while conducting their own due diligence before taking over when Abramovich was forced by the UK Government to sell the club in 2022.
Then in November, ‘Cyprus Confidential’, a joint investigation by the Guardian and other international outlets, uncovered files relating to a series of payments, valued at tens of millions of pounds, spread over the course of a decade and ‘routed through offshore vehicles’ belonging to Abramovich.
According to the Guardian, beneficiaries appear to include the agent of Eden Hazard, an associate of Antonio Conte, and other Chelsea officials. Other payments also appear to have been connected to the signings of Samuel Eto’o and Willian.
Where are we now? Richard Masters said on January 16: “On Chelsea, as you know the new owners of Chelsea came forward to UEFA, the FA and Premier League about information of the previous ownership and we are still investigating that. We won’t announce the outcome of that until we have completed the investigations.”
So, basically, we must wait to see what the Premier League comes up with.
The Guardian reported back in November that they had been told by four leading sports lawyers that some of the payments uncovered in the ‘Cyprus Confidential’ files may have broken Premier League and UEFA FFP regulations.
UEFA has already fined Chelsea and its scope is limited because of its statute of limitations that enables the European governing body to look back only as far as the 2018-19 season. The Premier League has no such restriction and can delve back as far as it wishes.
If the Premier League charges Chelsea with rule breaches, similarly to Forest and Everton’s situation, the matter will be referred to an independent commission. If found guilty, on the balance of probabilities, Chelsea could appeal, but that is as far as the club could go.
Manchester City
Oh, boy…
Unlike Chelsea, City have been charged. With 115 (one-hundred and fifteen) alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules over a nine-year period between 2009 and 2018. In that time, City won the title three times.
As well as being charged with failing to disclose “accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position” and managerial remuneration details around Roberto Mancini’s contract, City are also alleged to have breached Premier League PSR during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
City strenuously deny the charges and said they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all”. That was almost a year ago, in February 2023, when the charges were first filed by the Premier League.
So why is the case still dragging on? Simply because of the volume and complexity of the charges.
City have already successfully defended themselves in legal action brought by UEFA after German newspaper Der Spiegel in 2018 first highlighted alleged wrongdoing. The club were initially banned from European competition for two years but that was overturned on appeal by the Court of Arbitration for Sport later in 2020. So the Premier League know they have to make their charges stick.
A hearing date has been set. But it’s a secret.
When questioned about the frustration of Everton and Forest fans over the speed of their processes compared to City’s, Richard Masters said: “I can understand but they are very different charges. If any club, current champions or otherwise, were found in breach of the spending rules in 2022-23 they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest. But the volume and character of the charges laid against City, which I obviously cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you when that is but that is progressing.”
The Daily Mail reported in November that the date will be in late autumn 2024.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 17, 2024, 10:24:19 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on January 17, 2024, 10:55:15 AM
Post by: DB on January 17, 2024, 10:58:29 AM
The Political aspect is interesting. It does show to me that the EPL are out of their depth on this, they are years behind in their mentality.
Post by: brontebilly on January 17, 2024, 11:04:53 AM
Nottingham might have had a stronger case if they hadn't also played Johnson in three games this season including one against relegation candidates whilst waiting to sell him.
They can argue that playing him forced the hand of prospective buyers, we did same with Milner back in the day. I think they have a strong case on Johnson to be fair. It's not logical to sell your star player for a lot less than they eventually got a few weeks later. The PL are going to have to bend on that one I think and tie their rules to the end of the transfer window.
Post by: Monty on January 17, 2024, 11:08:28 AM
Nottingham might have had a stronger case if they hadn't also played Johnson in three games this season including one against relegation candidates whilst waiting to sell him.
They can argue that playing him forced the hand of prospective buyers, we did same with Milner back in the day. I think they have a strong case on Johnson to be fair. It's not logical to sell your star player for a lot less than they eventually got a few weeks later. The PL are going to have to bend on that one I think and tie their rules to the end of the transfer window.
Not only is it not logical, it's not the best way to ensure profitability and sustainability! I think they've hit upon a weak spot in the rules there, at least from a fairness standpoint.
Post by: Lsvilla on January 17, 2024, 11:23:58 AM
Wouldn't the sale of Johnson be reported in the 2023 accounts as a significant post balance event ? I know that obviously doesn't change the actual loss reported in the financial year, but formally highlights the corrective action taken by the club and condoned by the auditors. If I was analysing a set of accounts I'd factor this into my analysis of overall fiscal strength. So I would say that this just highlights the weakness in the drafting of the P&S rules. Or am I being naive ?
Post by: Dave on January 17, 2024, 11:28:47 AM
Nottingham might have had a stronger case if they hadn't also played Johnson in three games this season including one against relegation candidates whilst waiting to sell him.
They can argue that playing him forced the hand of prospective buyers, we did same with Milner back in the day. I think they have a strong case on Johnson to be fair. It's not logical to sell your star player for a lot less than they eventually got a few weeks later. The PL are going to have to bend on that one I think and tie their rules to the end of the transfer window.
Not only is it not logical, it's not the best way to ensure profitability and sustainability! I think they've hit upon a weak spot in the rules there, at least from a fairness standpoint.
It does seem to be a silly rule. I'm just not sure that "we thought it was a silly rule so we decided to ignore it" is really a defence that the league will go along with, and want to then have as a precedent for the future.
Post by: Monty on January 17, 2024, 11:32:26 AM
Post by: Ads on January 17, 2024, 11:45:12 AM
I'm sure it's more complex than this, but IF ground development projects are meant to be outside FFP, it seems madness that the interest on a loan for their ground development is what has tipped Everton over the threshold. How can the capital costs be excluded but not the funding costs? It seems like a ridiculous loophole for the PL to prosecute when the stakes are so high.
As it was taken out before planning permission had been granted. That makes it murky.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 17, 2024, 11:45:56 AM
https://x.com/sportingintel/status/1747398758025801826?t=3DFVLyf21Jgy54RnpbmdLQ&s=08That's a great thread, thanks
The Political aspect is interesting. It does show to me that the EPL are out of their depth on this, they are years behind in their mentality.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 17, 2024, 11:51:56 AM
June may seem an odd cut off, but it does give clubs a short window if they have a problem. I think where there is no perfect solution, the June cut off is ok. But if it was to be moved, it should be brought forward, not pushed back.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 17, 2024, 11:52:20 AM
Post by: Smithy on January 17, 2024, 11:55:59 AM
I'm sure it's more complex than this, but IF ground development projects are meant to be outside FFP, it seems madness that the interest on a loan for their ground development is what has tipped Everton over the threshold. How can the capital costs be excluded but not the funding costs? It seems like a ridiculous loophole for the PL to prosecute when the stakes are so high.
I'm guessing, but I'd assume the argument is that it's interest paid on loans taken out only because all of the available club funds were spent on players. i.e. you can't spend all of your money on players up to the FFP limit, then borrow what you need for capital investment without there being "some" FFP cost to it. You can spend what you like on capital investment, but if you're having to borrow large sums to do it, that is probably a negative on the "sustainability" front, and they want it accounted for in FFP some how?
I agree it's not consistent, but I can sort of see why it's included in the calculation.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 17, 2024, 11:57:25 AM
Post by: Smithy on January 17, 2024, 12:04:54 PM
But they wouldn't have needed the loan if they weren't doing the development.
And they wouldn't have needed the loan if they hadn't maxed out buying players to the FFP limit.
Again, I do sort of agree with you that it's inconsistent. I can just see how they're maybe thinking they don't want people maxing out on players to the FFP limit, and then having to borrow money elsewhere to "invest in the club in other areas". They probably want it all done "sustainably".
I think of it this way; What if they'd paid for the building costs out of their normal club funds, but borrowed that same amount of money to buy players up tot the FFP limit. The net impact to the club is the same, they've still borrowed the same amount, it's just the interest would be applied to the player costs, not the capital costs.
They're basically saying, "if you've borrowed money, having maxed out your FFP losses, we're going to assume you've borrowed that money for FFP related expenditure, whether you have or not"
Post by: Somniloquism on January 17, 2024, 12:23:49 PM
Moving the cut-off date essentially gives clubs like Forest extra windows in which to fuck about with their finances and also allows the same player move to affect accounts over different periods. Will Forest try to claim Johnsons FFP sale from 2022-2023 or from 2023-2024 when looking at the three year period his "pure profit" shows on the books for example?
Post by: chrisw1 on January 17, 2024, 12:50:46 PM
What's wrong with maxing out on players to the FFP limit? That's what it's there for.But they wouldn't have needed the loan if they weren't doing the development.
And they wouldn't have needed the loan if they hadn't maxed out buying players to the FFP limit.
Again, I do sort of agree with you that it's inconsistent. I can just see how they're maybe thinking they don't want people maxing out on players to the FFP limit, and then having to borrow money elsewhere to "invest in the club in other areas". They probably want it all done "sustainably".
I think of it this way; What if they'd paid for the building costs out of their normal club funds, but borrowed that same amount of money to buy players up tot the FFP limit. The net impact to the club is the same, they've still borrowed the same amount, it's just the interest would be applied to the player costs, not the capital costs.
They're basically saying, "if you've borrowed money, having maxed out your FFP losses, we're going to assume you've borrowed that money for FFP related expenditure, whether you have or not"
Either building costs are excluded or they're not. This seems like a weird case to me. Can you imagine them charging Man U or Arsenal on this basis?
Post by: Hookeysmith on January 17, 2024, 01:22:30 PM
115 charges are absurd and if they are allowed to get away with this then we all may as well give up.
They can postulate and argue as much as they like but the eyes are on them...and they know it
The claim by FA etc is that the claims are different - i agree - Everton, Forest and even Chelsea are just down to either shit or dodgy accounting
Shitty is pure cheating - simple as that
Post by: Stu on January 17, 2024, 01:48:09 PM
Post by: TelfordVilla on January 17, 2024, 01:56:46 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on January 17, 2024, 01:59:02 PM
Whatever happens to anyone else all eyes are now fixed on Man Shitty.
115 charges are absurd and if they are allowed to get away with this then we all may as well give up.
They can postulate and argue as much as they like but the eyes are on them...and they know it
The claim by FA etc is that the claims are different - i agree - Everton, Forest and even Chelsea are just down to either shit or dodgy accounting
Shitty is pure cheating - simple as that
It’s not the FA is it? It’s the Premier League.
Post by: Simon Page on January 17, 2024, 02:48:22 PM
They will announce that what City did was wrong, but cannot happen again as they have shut the stable door. Therefore a fine is appropriate and having learned from that situation we can all put it behind us and move on.
Lessons have been learned. This was all a long time ago, different age. We have robust procedures in place. The probity of the Premier League is of paramount importance to us. Trust is at the heart of what we do.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 17, 2024, 02:54:24 PM
What's wrong with maxing out on players to the FFP limit? That's what it's there for.
Either building costs are excluded or they're not. This seems like a weird case to me. Can you imagine them charging Man U or Arsenal on this basis?
Isn't the claim that they made two loans going on and claimed they were both for the stadium build but one of them was actually for general running costs, and so should be included in the PSR threshold?
Quote
Misleading the Premier League about stadium interest
The Premier League complains that Everton deliberately misled about the source of funds for the stadium development. Everton had two sources of funds – Moshiri’s interest free shareholder loans (albeit not charge free) and commercial loans from Rights and Media Funding and Metro Bank. By applying the costs of the commercial loans to the stadium development company, the Premier League complained this was deliberately misleading. The commercial loans were for working capital purposes within the club.
Importantly the Premier League makes no allegation of dishonesty. However by providing materially inaccurate information there was a breach of utmost good faith as imposed by Premier League Rule B15.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 17, 2024, 03:18:01 PM
I know there's at least one particularly talented accountant on here (Percy told me !) so I have a question for them.You have to have a date when the financial transactions are accounted for, if not there would be chaos.
Wouldn't the sale of Johnson be reported in the 2023 accounts as a significant post balance event ? I know that obviously doesn't change the actual loss reported in the financial year, but formally highlights the corrective action taken by the club and condoned by the auditors. If I was analysing a set of accounts I'd factor this into my analysis of overall fiscal strength. So I would say that this just highlights the weakness in the drafting of the P&S rules. Or am I being naive ?
It’s like a seller of umbrellas saying if it had rained in September instead of October as our financial year end is September we would have made profit.
Forest have more control over their affairs than someone does over the weather.
They sold him for more they claim after the accounting period, so what?
They were sailing too close to the wind and got caught out.
Post by: brontebilly on January 17, 2024, 08:40:34 PM
I know there's at least one particularly talented accountant on here (Percy told me !) so I have a question for them.You have to have a date when the financial transactions are accounted for, if not there would be chaos.
Wouldn't the sale of Johnson be reported in the 2023 accounts as a significant post balance event ? I know that obviously doesn't change the actual loss reported in the financial year, but formally highlights the corrective action taken by the club and condoned by the auditors. If I was analysing a set of accounts I'd factor this into my analysis of overall fiscal strength. So I would say that this just highlights the weakness in the drafting of the P&S rules. Or am I being naive ?
It’s like a seller of umbrellas saying if it had rained in September instead of October as our financial year end is September we would have made profit.
Forest have more control over their affairs than someone does over the weather.
They sold him for more they claim after the accounting period, so what?
They were sailing too close to the wind and got caught out.
Let's just start with there's chaos anyway. FFP is encouraging clubs to stockpile academy players just to sell them for FFP benefit. So there have been unintended consequences already that aren't in the interests of players, clubs or the wider game. These will require changes.
Here's another blatantly obvious one, you simply can't have the 'line' during the transfer window. Forest have proven beyond doubt the issue here and will win this case all day if it goes the court. It simply has to be in the interests of P&S for clubs to sell their assets at their fair value during a trading period, given the transfer window it will nearly always be at the end for getting the best price for a top player. Instead of putting their hands up and changing the 'line', they have opened themselves to ridicule by charging Forest and emboldened the likes of Man City no doubt too.
Post by: LeonW on January 17, 2024, 09:17:39 PM
I know there's at least one particularly talented accountant on here (Percy told me !) so I have a question for them.You have to have a date when the financial transactions are accounted for, if not there would be chaos.
Wouldn't the sale of Johnson be reported in the 2023 accounts as a significant post balance event ? I know that obviously doesn't change the actual loss reported in the financial year, but formally highlights the corrective action taken by the club and condoned by the auditors. If I was analysing a set of accounts I'd factor this into my analysis of overall fiscal strength. So I would say that this just highlights the weakness in the drafting of the P&S rules. Or am I being naive ?
It’s like a seller of umbrellas saying if it had rained in September instead of October as our financial year end is September we would have made profit.
Forest have more control over their affairs than someone does over the weather.
They sold him for more they claim after the accounting period, so what?
They were sailing too close to the wind and got caught out.
Let's just start with there's chaos anyway. FFP is encouraging clubs to stockpile academy players just to sell them for FFP benefit. So there have been unintended consequences already that aren't in the interests of players, clubs or the wider game. These will require changes.
Here's another blatantly obvious one, you simply can't have the 'line' during the transfer window. Forest have proven beyond doubt the issue here and will win this case all day if it goes the court. It simply has to be in the interests of P&S for clubs to sell their assets at their fair value during a trading period, given the transfer window it will nearly always be at the end for getting the best price for a top player. Instead of putting their hands up and changing the 'line', they have opened themselves to ridicule by charging Forest and emboldened the likes of Man City no doubt too.
The argument will probably be that those were the rules at the time and weren’t followed with regards Forest. I have every sympathy with them morally, because I don’t think it can be right that they could get almost double for a player just by waiting a month as a likely result of FFP accounting periods, especially trying to break the established elite under FFP but those were the rules at the time which all the clubs agreed to.
I think the two points you make are salient ones with regards changing things for the future. Just as I wonder whether it should be ok to charge a club for two different accountancy issues relating to different periods in the same season as is what is happening with Everton. Having said that, Everton themselves did delay the initial process to later last year which fell into a new season. Obviously because they knew there was a strong chance of a points penalty and they almost went down last season. So there’s got to be some semblance of responsibility from the clubs involved, particularly those who have adhered to the rules.
Post by: LeonW on January 17, 2024, 09:43:27 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 17, 2024, 09:55:00 PM
I agree with your first paragraph but your second paragraph and the idea that they would “win the case all day” is somewhat removed from reality, they are in breach, there maybe mitigating factors that could be taken into account but this can not be confused with wether or not they broke the rules.I know there's at least one particularly talented accountant on here (Percy told me !) so I have a question for them.You have to have a date when the financial transactions are accounted for, if not there would be chaos.
Wouldn't the sale of Johnson be reported in the 2023 accounts as a significant post balance event ? I know that obviously doesn't change the actual loss reported in the financial year, but formally highlights the corrective action taken by the club and condoned by the auditors. If I was analysing a set of accounts I'd factor this into my analysis of overall fiscal strength. So I would say that this just highlights the weakness in the drafting of the P&S rules. Or am I being naive ?
It’s like a seller of umbrellas saying if it had rained in September instead of October as our financial year end is September we would have made profit.
Forest have more control over their affairs than someone does over the weather.
They sold him for more they claim after the accounting period, so what?
They were sailing too close to the wind and got caught out.
Let's just start with there's chaos anyway. FFP is encouraging clubs to stockpile academy players just to sell them for FFP benefit. So there have been unintended consequences already that aren't in the interests of players, clubs or the wider game. These will require changes.
Here's another blatantly obvious one, you simply can't have the 'line' during the transfer window. Forest have proven beyond doubt the issue here and will win this case all day if it goes the court. It simply has to be in the interests of P&S for clubs to sell their assets at their fair value during a trading period, given the transfer window it will nearly always be at the end for getting the best price for a top player. Instead of putting their hands up and changing the 'line', they have opened themselves to ridicule by charging Forest and emboldened the likes of Man City no doubt too.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on January 17, 2024, 09:56:11 PM
Post by: LeonW on January 17, 2024, 11:22:02 PM
It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.
I think I can see where I’ve gone wrong; Everton are trying to write off interest due on loans for the building of their new stadium as a mitigation for their accounting and the EPL is saying that that doesn’t count.
Post by: VillaTim on January 17, 2024, 11:31:05 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on January 18, 2024, 12:04:32 AM
It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.
I think I can see where I’ve gone wrong; Everton are trying to write off interest due on loans for the building of their new stadium as a mitigation for their accounting and the EPL is saying that that doesn’t count.
Yeah, I thought that might be the case, it was mentioned a few posts ago. Good luck to them*.
*not really.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 18, 2024, 07:55:37 AM
The EPLare saying that the loans have been used to finance working capital including transfers and player purchases so the interest payments are normal operating expenses so subject to FFP.It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.
I think I can see where I’ve gone wrong; Everton are trying to write off interest due on loans for the building of their new stadium as a mitigation for their accounting and the EPL is saying that that doesn’t count.
Post by: Rigadon on January 18, 2024, 08:32:33 AM
All this waiting about in the case of man city stinks to high heaven.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 18, 2024, 09:41:14 AM
And people are stating Forest are in the right?
Edit: Although it would be interesting which accounting period Awoniyi is in for Forest. They "signed" him in June 2022 but his Contract started July 1st.
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 09:42:43 AM
Post by: eamonn on January 18, 2024, 09:48:53 AM
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 09:53:29 AM
The PL may argue that they should have been prepping to have their house in order earlier and not be relying on one massive sale last summer. As Paulie said, players registrations tend to end on June 30th, instead of seeing the summer window as a way to claw back their losses, they should have planned better the previous windows, not by buying a player per day the previous summer before trying to dump half of then when they didn't work out.
I'd say this bears about as much relation to how the transfer market actually works as the handball rule does to how the game is played on the pitch.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 18, 2024, 09:54:24 AM
Not their fault that the transfer window - i.e. the total amount of time they have to maximise their profitability and sustainability - overlaps with the start of the Premier League season. What were they going to do, not play him?Sell him before the deadline.
Forest's case is open and shut. They had 3 seasons and 3 summer transfer windows to do their business. Their sale of Johnson benefits them in this season's books not last. It would be ridiculous if clubs could pick and choose which seasons their transfers applied to in order to manipulate figures to their benefit.
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 09:55:25 AM
Post by: LeeB on January 18, 2024, 09:57:54 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
Post by: Smithy on January 18, 2024, 09:59:52 AM
Not their fault that the transfer window - i.e. the total amount of time they have to maximise their profitability and sustainability - overlaps with the start of the Premier League season. What were they going to do, not play him?Sell him before the deadline.
Forests case is open and shut.
I suspect Forest are making their argument solely to ensure it's a fine, not a points deduction. I don't believe for one moment they are hoping to get away scot-free from all this. They knew the rules, and so deserve a punishment, but if it IS a fine, then it has to be an amount that ensures someone else in the same situation doesn't simply make the same decision. i.e. the fine has to be a significant amount. Every place in the league is worth about £2m in prize money, so a fine in the £10m range wouldn't be out of the question I think. I will be surprised if they get docked points, given their mitigation argument.
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 10:00:31 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
Like, what is the purpose of this rule, is my point. Happens so often in bureaucracy - enforcing it like this shows that the purpose is just the enforcement of rules, where it should be what it claims to be, i.e. profitability and sustainability. Forest flew a little close to the sun but got there in the end, and a sensible system of rules would say that's the end of it. Instead, beady-eyed, Excel-soulled pen pushers tell them that they can't actually be profitable or sustainable, despite what reality says, because the rule is actually stupid and the rule must be applied.
Like I say, I get that Forest broke the rules and they shouldn't have and their should be a sanction. I just find the idea that they're the biggest bad guys in this situation, when these same rules have allowed Chelsea to spend however much it is on being shite, a little much.
Post by: LeeB on January 18, 2024, 10:03:25 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 18, 2024, 10:03:56 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.I understand why it seems daft, but when you look into it in more detail it's clear that if you're going to have these types of rules there needs to be deadlines. You can guarantee if Forest had complied last season they wouldn't be wanting Johnson's fee to be backdated - they'd want it to apply to this season.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 18, 2024, 10:06:27 AM
The transfer window is applied to the following season not the previous. As it should, because that's the season you start benefiting from the players.I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
It's a bit of a loophole that clubs get a short period to fix any issues if they choose to before the deadline. Forest chose not to, in full knowledge of the rules.
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 10:07:02 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 10:09:11 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on January 18, 2024, 10:10:07 AM
Post by: Jockey Randall on January 18, 2024, 10:11:23 AM
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.
Post by: Monty on January 18, 2024, 10:11:47 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 18, 2024, 10:18:41 AM
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.
UEFA has a statute of limitations, which is why they, in effect, got off with those charges. The PL doesn't.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 18, 2024, 10:19:50 AM
Would say, as with many cases in life, a lesser penalty for late compliance than for flagrant non-compliance.I get where you're coming from and it's how I felt initially until I looked into it a bit more (I am generally against FFP and have huge sympathy for Forest and Everton whilst Man City get away with it). But it's not late compliance, it's non-compliance. They will be benefiting from the Johnson sale over the next 3 seasons as per the rules. It would be entirely wrong if they benefitted from his sale twice.
Post by: brontebilly on January 18, 2024, 10:33:27 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
It's fundamentally flawed. Player trading isn't like umbrellas or stocks, there are only limited trading periods. Drawing a line during one is idiotic. Forest obviously gambled here, what if no club came in hard for Johnson and they ended up selling him for less than Brentford's bid. But it was a calculated gamble, clubs always get desperate (and cashed up) near the end of the window and so it proved here.
Post by: algy on January 18, 2024, 10:36:06 AM
For me, Forest signed players that summer knowing (or at least, they should've known) that the books needed to be balanced on 30th June. It's nobody else's fault but their own that they were in a position where they had to sell a player for under his market value because they were in a bit of a pickle financially.I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
The "Best price" argument is bollocks as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, sure, if you have to sell a player by a certain date then you're not going to get as good a price as if you didn't. Tough shit, you put yourself in that position in the first place.
All that said, I do have some amount of sympathy with them, and given they had resolved their problems by the end of that transfer window, I'd think a fine would be more appropriate than a points deduction. They'd played to the spirit of the laws rather than to the letter in my book. I don't see any problem with the letter of the law, by the way - that's when the season runs, so it's when the accounts should run. If anything, the transfer window should be moved to fit in with that - not the other way round.
The loan situation with Everton seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you can build a new stand/stadium/whatever without taking a loan, it's clearly sustainable [at the time]. If you need to take a loan, then questions have to be asked as to whether that club is operating in a sustainable way or not. Otherwise what's stopping them using loans to pay the leccy bill?
Post by: garyellis on January 18, 2024, 10:49:58 AM
Forest have not got a leg to stand on. Sheffield Wednesday got a major points deduction basically for selling their ground in the wrong financial year. Different rules to EPL but very similar accounting concept its called cut off.For me, Forest signed players that summer knowing (or at least, they should've known) that the books needed to be balanced on 30th June. It's nobody else's fault but their own that they were in a position where they had to sell a player for under his market value because they were in a bit of a pickle financially.I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
The "Best price" argument is bollocks as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, sure, if you have to sell a player by a certain date then you're not going to get as good a price as if you didn't. Tough shit, you put yourself in that position in the first place.
All that said, I do have some amount of sympathy with them, and given they had resolved their problems by the end of that transfer window, I'd think a fine would be more appropriate than a points deduction. They'd played to the spirit of the laws rather than to the letter in my book. I don't see any problem with the letter of the law, by the way - that's when the season runs, so it's when the accounts should run. If anything, the transfer window should be moved to fit in with that - not the other way round.
The loan situation with Everton seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you can build a new stand/stadium/whatever without taking a loan, it's clearly sustainable [at the time]. If you need to take a loan, then questions have to be asked as to whether that club is operating in a sustainable way or not. Otherwise what's stopping them using loans to pay the leccy bill?
Post by: Somniloquism on January 18, 2024, 10:54:09 AM
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.
UEFA has a statute of limitations, which is why they, in effect, got off with those charges. The PL doesn't.
Weirdly for Europe as well, I believe appeals are done by three people, one on behalf of the prosecution, one on the defence and a third "independent". For the third one, it was someone from the same law firm who were representing Citeh in the defence......
Post by: LeeB on January 18, 2024, 10:56:22 AM
The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.
I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.
UEFA has a statute of limitations, which is why they, in effect, got off with those charges. The PL doesn't.
Weirdly for Europe as well, I believe appeals are done by three people, one on behalf of the prosecution, one on the defence and a third "independent". For the third one, it was someone from the same law firm who were representing Citeh in the defence......
It's some of Cerefin's mates from school isn't it? That's pretty much everyone at Uefa now.
Post by: Dogtanian on January 18, 2024, 11:16:29 AM
A year would drop off your FFP calculations and free up some budget on a day where you now couldn't add to your squad until January?
I can see in the business finance world the two ending together would make things clearer, but in a sports league where you can only buy players twice a year, it wouldn't make much sense.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 18, 2024, 11:36:06 AM
But any rule based on financial performance has to have period beginning and end date.I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
Like, what is the purpose of this rule, is my point. Happens so often in bureaucracy - enforcing it like this shows that the purpose is just the enforcement of rules, where it should be what it claims to be, i.e. profitability and sustainability. Forest flew a little close to the sun but got there in the end, and a sensible system of rules would say that's the end of it. Instead, beady-eyed, Excel-soulled pen pushers tell them that they can't actually be profitable or sustainable, despite what reality says, because the rule is actually stupid and the rule must be applied.
Like I say, I get that Forest broke the rules and they shouldn't have and their should be a sanction. I just find the idea that they're the biggest bad guys in this situation, when these same rules have allowed Chelsea to spend however much it is on being shite, a little much.
If not, it’s not a rule.
Post by: tomd2103 on January 18, 2024, 11:39:01 AM
I can see all of this blowing up big time to be honest. Also think there will be increasing pressure for something to be done about Manchester City, as if they win trophies again this season with that hanging over them, it raises huge questions.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 18, 2024, 11:40:39 AM
Just been listening to a financial expert on Talksport talking about FFP. He was saying that it is highly likely that Everton are going to breach for 23/24 as well, but they have hired some top lawyer to represent them. He also said that Forest haven't got a lefmg to stand on really.Yes, the fact that it brings the spotlight back on them is the best part of this.
I can see alm of this blowing up big time to be honest. Also think there will be increasing pressure for something to be done about Manchester City, as if they win trophies again this season with that hanging over them, it raises huge questions.
Post by: DB on January 18, 2024, 11:53:12 AM
It’s all very dark and a lot of unknowns. Added with the Everton and Forest situation, it’s all just a big mess.
Post by: VillaTim on January 18, 2024, 11:57:32 AM
they were allowed to carry on and win the treble last season with all this hanging over them too.
I can see all of this blowing up big time to be honest. Also think there will be increasing pressure for something to be done about Manchester City, as if they win trophies again this season with that hanging over them, it raises huge questions.
Each and every one of their performances at the moment should be caveated by the fact that it may be fraudulent.
Post by: DennisHodgetts on January 18, 2024, 11:57:53 AM
Post by: eamonn on January 18, 2024, 12:46:25 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 18, 2024, 12:47:55 PM
Post by: LeeS on January 18, 2024, 12:56:51 PM
Do the PL really want City punished, therefore admitting all their trophies and all the entertainment they have bought since 2008, was basically done by cheating. That would seriously damage the PL brand???
It’s all very dark and a lot of unknowns. Added with the Everton and Forest situation, it’s all just a big mess.
The PL isnt an entity, it is 20 separate clubs with their own interests. Almost all of them would love to see Man City knocked off their perch. Especially those that have complied with the rules
Post by: Smithy on January 18, 2024, 01:01:55 PM
Do the PL really want City punished, therefore admitting all their trophies and all the entertainment they have bought since 2008, was basically done by cheating. That would seriously damage the PL brand???
It’s all very dark and a lot of unknowns. Added with the Everton and Forest situation, it’s all just a big mess.
The PL isnt an entity, it is 20 separate clubs with their own interests. Almost all of them would love to see Man City knocked off their perch. Especially those that have complied with the rules
I also think any PL officials, such as Richard Masters, will position themselves as "fellow victims" of Man City's financial crimes. "The cheated us, too"
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 18, 2024, 01:21:03 PM
Post by: Gareth on January 18, 2024, 01:26:39 PM
I don't have much sympathy for Forest. Each season during the financial period there's 2 transfer windows. They wanted a 3rd. And what was their plan if Johnson had done a Mings and been crocked for the season 30 mins into the first game of the season as they were playing him, or a Buendia and it happened in training. They gambled by buying countless players and they lost.
100% this.
There transfer approach last year was largely a necessary one because they had got promoted on back of 4 / 5 loans and they only had 1 or 2 capable of the step up but they knew the rules and had to stay within those rules. They had means because the owner also owns Olympiakos to move players about.
Post by: DB on January 18, 2024, 01:46:53 PM
Do the PL really want City punished, therefore admitting all their trophies and all the entertainment they have bought since 2008, was basically done by cheating. That would seriously damage the PL brand???
It’s all very dark and a lot of unknowns. Added with the Everton and Forest situation, it’s all just a big mess.
The PL isnt an entity, it is 20 separate clubs with their own interests. Almost all of them would love to see Man City knocked off their perch. Especially those that have complied with the rules
Question and point still stands.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 18, 2024, 01:47:41 PM
They ended up with all their eggs in one Johnson shaped basket, which was in a window more than other clubs were accounting for, and who knows what their plan was if he'd been crocked.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 18, 2024, 02:05:41 PM
Post by: Dave on January 18, 2024, 02:06:24 PM
I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.
For example, they brought in six goalkeepers in the period summer '22 - summer '23. That seems distinctly unnecessary.
Post by: Smithy on January 18, 2024, 02:20:40 PM
The season they were hit by, 2022-23, they spent 166 mil and sold 3mil. 138mil in the first summer, and another 28 mil in the winter. So the £35 mil first offered for Johnson wouldn't have cleared it anyway. I'm assuming some other money from loan deals etc must have also been used as the 47mil doesn't bring it under 105mil either.
That's not really how it works, though. Gibbs-White, for example, cost them £30m, but that isn't "£30m" straight into the FFP calculation for 22/23. He signed a five-year contract, so it's £30m / 5 years, or £6m per year for the next five years. For FFP purposes, player transfer fees are spread across the length of the contract they sign. They spent £190m the first year back up, but realistically, only about £50m-£60m at most will have been in the 22/23 FFP calculation. Obviously their wages went up massively as well.
But this "spreading out the transfer fee over the length of the contract" is why selling homegrown players is such a positive for FFP, because the fee you receive is 100% profit, and all accounted for immediately in FFP terms. So of that £50-60m they "spent" in FFP terms in 2022/23, they got almost all of it back immediately from spurs for Brennan Johnson. But it was after the deadline, so they still had that FFP hole at 30th June.
The other problem they have is that they have another £50-60m on "FFP costs" this year from LAST year's signings, and they don't have another Johnson to sell. If they needed a £50m homegrown sale last summer to save them from FFP issues, I've no idea what they're going to do this year.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 18, 2024, 02:31:39 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 18, 2024, 02:33:31 PM
I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.
They ended up with all their eggs in one Johnson shaped basket, which was in a window more than other clubs were accounting for, and who knows what their plan was if he'd been crocked.
This is it, in a nutshell.
Forest went absolutely batshit and spent a fortune on literally tens of players.
How did they think this was going to pan out with FFP?
I don’t like the rules of ffp either but the fact is they are the rules and Forest knew that. I have zero sympathy for them (despite them being a club I’ve always liked).
Post by: LeeB on January 18, 2024, 02:35:20 PM
I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.
They ended up with all their eggs in one Johnson shaped basket, which was in a window more than other clubs were accounting for, and who knows what their plan was if he'd been crocked.
This is it, in a nutshell.
Forest went absolutely batshit and spent a fortune on literally tens of players.
How did they think this was going to pan out with FFP?
More than a whiff of a cleaning process going on.
Post by: VillaTim on January 18, 2024, 02:43:46 PM
Post by: aev on January 18, 2024, 04:05:24 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 18, 2024, 08:33:27 PM
Brennan Johnson will be this year's figures and on the rolling 3 year basis will help their numbers for the next two seasons.
That’s where I see a compromise. Using Forest’s logic the income from the transfer should be moved to a season earlier, therefore it’s on the books for two not three years.
They’re let off with a fine this season but the points punishment is in the post if they have cannot sort it out in two seasons.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 18, 2024, 08:49:33 PM
Post by: FatSam on January 18, 2024, 09:21:40 PM
Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back.
Only a Villa fan of a certain vintage could think the German tabloid newspaper Bild is spelt De Bilde. Sounds like your brain works a bit like mine!
Post by: brontebilly on January 18, 2024, 10:00:34 PM
I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.
They ended up with all their eggs in one Johnson shaped basket, which was in a window more than other clubs were accounting for, and who knows what their plan was if he'd been crocked.
But he didn't get crocked and they got a far bigger price for Johnson a few weeks later.
Some/a lot of their other business was highly questionable. The deals for likes of Lingard, Shelvey and Wood all stunk. Origi...another part time footballer stealing a living.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 18, 2024, 10:08:03 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 18, 2024, 10:18:45 PM
AFAIK, neither Leicester, Leeds or Southampton overspent during the same period and yet Forest did but people are stating they did nothing wrong because they should also be able to sell a player to "make up for it" the next financial period.
Post by: Louzie0 on January 18, 2024, 10:19:18 PM
Whenever sanctions for FFP are brought up in the news, my first thought is, ‘What about Manchester City?’The answer is simple. Man City, or should I say the extremely wealthy Arabs that own them, have can afford the best legal team on the planet and to quote an intercepted internal email that the German sports paper who investigated them in the first place printed "do whatever you need to do to make us the most successful team in the world, we can buy ourselves out of any situation and our legal team will tie them up in so many knots it will take years to carry out an investigation" Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back. By comparison the likes of Everton and Forest are just sitting ducks.
With 115 accusations against them, why are other clubs being docked points and fined, while they are sailing along, apparently untroubled by anything related to these allegations?
Whenever the date is, I hope it’s coming up this season.
Thanks, The Edge. I hadn’t heard the statement in De Bilde before, but this helps to confirm what I thought ( i.e. their supercharged team of lawyers holding it up).
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 18, 2024, 10:27:27 PM
You don’t get it do you?I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.
They ended up with all their eggs in one Johnson shaped basket, which was in a window more than other clubs were accounting for, and who knows what their plan was if he'd been crocked.
But he didn't get crocked and they got a far bigger price for Johnson a few weeks later.
Even Forest are not denying they broke the rules but you seem to think they didn’t.
Post by: Louzie0 on January 18, 2024, 10:28:01 PM
I feel that I link to them so often that it might be suspected that I work for them (I don't), but F365 do tend to be the best place on the interwebs for explaning this sort of stuff. If anyone is interested]
(https://www.football365.com/news/feature-ffp-man-city-115-charges-explained-nottingham-forest-everton-chelsea-premier-league)Quote…(NFFC, Everton, Chelsea, then)
Manchester City
Oh, boy…
Unlike Chelsea, City have been charged. With 115 (one-hundred and fifteen) alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules over a nine-year period between 2009 and 2018. In that time, City won the title three times.
As well as being charged with failing to disclose “accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position” and managerial remuneration details around Roberto Mancini’s contract, City are also alleged to have breached Premier League PSR during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
City strenuously deny the charges and said they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all”. That was almost a year ago, in February 2023, when the charges were first filed by the Premier League.
So why is the case still dragging on? Simply because of the volume and complexity of the charges.
City have already successfully defended themselves in legal action brought by UEFA after German newspaper Der Spiegel in 2018 first highlighted alleged wrongdoing. The club were initially banned from European competition for two years but that was overturned on appeal by the Court of Arbitration for Sport later in 2020. So the Premier League know they have to make their charges stick.
A hearing date has been set. But it’s a secret.
When questioned about the frustration of Everton and Forest fans over the speed of their processes compared to City’s, Richard Masters said: “I can understand but they are very different charges. If any club, current champions or otherwise, were found in breach of the spending rules in 2022-23 they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest. But the volume and character of the charges laid against City, which I obviously cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you when that is but that is progressing.”
The Daily Mail reported in November that the date will be in late autumn 2024.
Thanks for this context, Dave.
Post by: tomd2103 on January 19, 2024, 01:53:38 AM
I feel that I link to them so often that it might be suspected that I work for them (I don't), but F365 do tend to be the best place on the interwebs for explaning this sort of stuff. If anyone is interested]
(https://www.football365.com/news/feature-ffp-man-city-115-charges-explained-nottingham-forest-everton-chelsea-premier-league)Quote…(NFFC, Everton, Chelsea, then)
Manchester City
Oh, boy…
Unlike Chelsea, City have been charged. With 115 (one-hundred and fifteen) alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules over a nine-year period between 2009 and 2018. In that time, City won the title three times.
As well as being charged with failing to disclose “accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position” and managerial remuneration details around Roberto Mancini’s contract, City are also alleged to have breached Premier League PSR during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
City strenuously deny the charges and said they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all”. That was almost a year ago, in February 2023, when the charges were first filed by the Premier League.
So why is the case still dragging on? Simply because of the volume and complexity of the charges.
City have already successfully defended themselves in legal action brought by UEFA after German newspaper Der Spiegel in 2018 first highlighted alleged wrongdoing. The club were initially banned from European competition for two years but that was overturned on appeal by the Court of Arbitration for Sport later in 2020. So the Premier League know they have to make their charges stick.
A hearing date has been set. But it’s a secret.
When questioned about the frustration of Everton and Forest fans over the speed of their processes compared to City’s, Richard Masters said: “I can understand but they are very different charges. If any club, current champions or otherwise, were found in breach of the spending rules in 2022-23 they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest. But the volume and character of the charges laid against City, which I obviously cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you when that is but that is progressing.”
The Daily Mail reported in November that the date will be in late autumn 2024.
Thanks for this context, Dave.
I will confess to not knowing too much about these issues, but why don't they just start with one of the charges and then go from there if addressing all 115 is so problematic.
Post by: Rory on January 19, 2024, 02:03:14 AM
Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?
Post by: johnc on January 19, 2024, 09:15:17 AM
Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.Probably not but Man City do have the money to pay for the very best of the very best as they do with players and managers (Unai excepted). They would be foolish not to use their super charged wealth to stymie whatever processes are ongoing
Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?
Post by: Somniloquism on January 19, 2024, 09:16:40 AM
I will confess to not knowing too much about these issues, but why don't they just start with one of the charges and then go from there if addressing all 115 is so problematic.
Because they are linked quite considerably and I suspect PL rules are charges made at the same time are judged at the same time. Toney had 220 or so charges and agreed on some and disagreed on others. The PL still didn't ban him until the outcome of the others had been heard.
Post by: lovejoy on January 19, 2024, 09:37:21 AM
Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back.
Only a Villa fan of a certain vintage could think the German tabloid newspaper Bild is spelt De Bilde. Sounds like your brain works a bit like mine!
Genuinely I often write withe rather than withe, I mean with.
Post by: lovejoy on January 19, 2024, 09:43:16 AM
Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.
Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?
The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 19, 2024, 09:46:48 AM
I wonder what sort of pressure other PL clubs are putting on the Premier League regarding Man Citeh.Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.
Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?
The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.
I can not believe that Liverpool Manure and Arse are holding back.
Post by: eamonn on January 19, 2024, 09:54:27 AM
Maybe not word for word but that's the gist of it. Printed in De Bilde (?) a few years back.
Only a Villa fan of a certain vintage could think the German tabloid newspaper Bild is spelt De Bilde. Sounds like your brain works a bit like mine!
Genuinely I often write withe rather than withe, I mean with.
What about "width"?
Post by: Somniloquism on January 19, 2024, 09:57:33 AM
Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.
Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?
The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.
Aren't part of the reasons for the PL crackdowns is because the Government want to put their own "independent" panel in? It should be congratulated that it has forced movement, however in areas like the above, how independent will it be?
Post by: john2710 on January 19, 2024, 10:05:52 AM
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 19, 2024, 10:26:19 AM
It was 2 months later, a full transfer window. Why should they have 7 windows for sales while everyone else has 6?
Exactly.
If it's late, it's late.
Thats on nobody other than Forest.
If any purchaser tried to take advantage, then thats unfortunate.
They shouldn't have purchased first & made that sale need so desperate.
They had the benefit of the purchased players, the player they didn't sell & then the extra money they got by delaying 2 months.
How is that fair on everyone else down in the relegation battles?
Post by: Dave on January 19, 2024, 10:38:15 AM
Another thing that confuses me is the notion that Man City have some uniquely super-high-power lawyers.
Is any PL football club going with Saul Goodman or Vinny Gambini?
The UK exports €16bn goods and services to UAE and we have strong defence ties with them. At the current point of economic instability the governemnt are unlikely to want to risk this partnership. I would imagine significant political pressure being exerted here. Which is the whole reason why clubs shouldn't be owned by nation states.
See also the Johnson Government pressuring the Premier League to approve the Saudi takeover of Newcastle for diplomatic reasons.
Post by: lovejoy on January 19, 2024, 10:58:17 AM
Any "independant" panel implemented by this government will simply be another opportunity to appoint some mates for favours to be repaid at a later date.
Someone to blame when things go wrong and a buffer (see court scene in Godfather 2).
Such as Bank of England and inflation.
Post by: lovejoy on January 19, 2024, 10:59:00 AM
Has anybody else noticed since the Manc punishment delay that the media, Sky Sports News in particular, have started to use P&S instead of FFP to describe the whole drawer bridge raising farce?It was 2 months later, a full transfer window. Why should they have 7 windows for sales while everyone else has 6?
Exactly.
If it's late, it's late.
Thats on nobody other than Forest.
If any purchaser tried to take advantage, then thats unfortunate.
They shouldn't have purchased first & made that sale need so desperate.
They had the benefit of the purchased players, the player they didn't sell & then the extra money they got by delaying 2 months.
How is that fair on everyone else down in the relegation battles?
Who does he think he is Andre Arshavin?
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 19, 2024, 11:32:23 AM
Has anybody else noticed since the Manc punishment delay that the media, Sky Sports News in particular, have started to use P&S instead of FFP to describe the whole drawer bridge raising farce?It was 2 months later, a full transfer window. Why should they have 7 windows for sales while everyone else has 6?
Exactly.
If it's late, it's late.
Thats on nobody other than Forest.
If any purchaser tried to take advantage, then thats unfortunate.
They shouldn't have purchased first & made that sale need so desperate.
They had the benefit of the purchased players, the player they didn't sell & then the extra money they got by delaying 2 months.
How is that fair on everyone else down in the relegation battles?
Who does he think he is Andre Arshavin?
@Pablo: It's being called PSR because that's the rebranded official name. FFP is just the name that's stuck amongst the public but it's not a term the media should be using. Also, it's not a drawbridge exercise and never has been. In order for PSR to have been brought in, 14 of the 20 member teams of the PL needed to agree on it. It isn't some big 6 conspiracy that they've forced on teams. I'd also argue that the rules aren't that close to drawbridge levels. Newcastle were bound for relegation until they were taken over. since then, they've invested and got to a cup final and the champions league. We've not that long been promoted and have consistently improved to the point that we are now chasing a Champions League place. With the right ownership, team and a bit of luck, it can be done. Maybe it just takes a bit longer than when City and Chelsea got investment. I, personally, don't think that is a bad thing because we all know that a sugar-daddy can get bored, lose their money or generally just be a bit rubbish. If that's the case and they've been able to spend carte blanche you end up in the position we very nearly did, which is clubs facing winding up orders. Surely it is better for teams to progress sustainably so that they are not reliant on rich owners?
I broadly agree with your comments on Forest though. I can, however, understand their argument that they wanted to sell Johnson to the highest bidder, which meant waiting until later in the window and after the PSR deadline. However, nobody forced them to purchase players ahead of that timeline. I'm not sure whether they'd have been PSR compliant if they'd have delayed those summer purchases though (given the way costs are amortised). it's possible, but not definite. What it does scream though is that the PSR deadline should be the start of the season/end of the transfer window (which I think should be one and the same but that's a separate issue). In that instance, you avoid this scenario where Forest, rightly, secured the highest bid for their player but in doing so, fell foul of a relatively arbitrary deadline.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 19, 2024, 12:11:01 PM
@Pablo: It's being called PSR because that's the rebranded official name. FFP is just the name that's stuck amongst the public but it's not a term the media should be using. Also, it's not a drawbridge exercise and never has been. In order for PSR to have been brought in, 14 of the 20 member teams of the PL needed to agree on it. It isn't some big 6 conspiracy that they've forced on teams. I'd also argue that the rules aren't that close to drawbridge levels. Newcastle were bound for relegation until they were taken over. since then, they've invested and got to a cup final and the champions league. We've not that long been promoted and have consistently improved to the point that we are now chasing a Champions League place. With the right ownership, team and a bit of luck, it can be done. Maybe it just takes a bit longer than when City and Chelsea got investment. I, personally, don't think that is a bad thing because we all know that a sugar-daddy can get bored, lose their money or generally just be a bit rubbish. If that's the case and they've been able to spend carte blanche you end up in the position we very nearly did, which is clubs facing winding up orders. Surely it is better for teams to progress sustainably so that they are not reliant on rich owners?
I broadly agree with your comments on Forest though. I can, however, understand their argument that they wanted to sell Johnson to the highest bidder, which meant waiting until later in the window and after the PSR deadline. However, nobody forced them to purchase players ahead of that timeline. I'm not sure whether they'd have been PSR compliant if they'd have delayed those summer purchases though (given the way costs are amortised). it's possible, but not definite. What it does scream though is that the PSR deadline should be the start of the season/end of the transfer window (which I think should be one and the same but that's a separate issue). In that instance, you avoid this scenario where Forest, rightly, secured the highest bid for their player but in doing so, fell foul of a relatively arbitrary deadline.
I understand, it's just before the Manc charges, it was called FFP by most of the media. If the timing is coincidental, then fair enough. And I suppose you have a point, if it is now officially called P&S, then that is the term the media should be using.
I do see it as a drawer bridge raising exercise because some clubs have been allowed to push far in advance of others & have retained all of the benefits from that advantage.
And then that advantage has been taken away for other clubs to be able to utilise, so the playing field has not been fair & level.
Granted, 14 clubs had to vote for things to change, but we are seeing that gap in full & vivid detail now we are at the precipice of joining those clubs, meaning that we are having to sell our youngsters or a first teamer, just to be able to improve the squad.
And yet most of those around us are still spending ridiculous amounts because that is the advantage they gained & kept.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why it was brought in. I just think that they went about it the wrong way.
Instead of allowing those clubs to spend a percentage of their profit, there should be a standard cap across the league that is the same for all clubs in each respective league. Whether thats spending, wages or both, there should not be a position where Chelsea, as poorly as they are run but had the advantage of a money laundering Oligarch buying them success & the subsequent sponsorship deals that raised their profits, are able to spend £1 billion in about a year because the percentage of those ill gotten gained profits are higher than that of Villa, who are run magnificently but did not have the advantage of ill gotten gained profits, & have to sell our academy players just so we can afford one extra quality body into the club so we can push on from where we are.
Chelsea sell them too, but thats the choice they make so they can spend £1B instead of £0.75B.
The fact that Chelsea & Manu are shitly run & Tottenham & Arsenal have consistent wobbles aren't the reason that we are sat in 3rd, but it is obviously helping. But it doesn't deter from the fact that we are sitting in 3rd & challenging those around us with one financial hand tied behind our back.
I think the 115 charges against Manc highlight the main issue I have with FFP / P&S. They didn't give two fucks about the rules, yet are allowed to continue operating with all of the advantages & benefits they gained while accruing those 115 charges. For me, as soon as they refused documents & started slowing things down with high priced lawyers, they should have faced an instant punishment. A point lost each month they fuck about. A transfer ban until they co-operate. Etc.
Something.
Anything...
I agree entirely with you about the dates for P&S. They should make logical sense in terms of the transfer windows & the season.
Post by: Rigadon on January 19, 2024, 12:27:51 PM
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 19, 2024, 12:27:52 PM
With a bit of luck Chelsea’s splurge will come and bite them in future years given the amortisation of those transfer fees will keep forcing them to sell players for years to come. And hopefully City get done for some or all of their breaches.
Post by: Toronto Villa on January 19, 2024, 12:44:46 PM
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 19, 2024, 12:49:09 PM
Would it be a huge surprise if the Saudi owners of Newcastle decided to sell up? They have to be frustrated that they can’t just muscle in and buy what or who they want. I can’t imagine they saw this level of restriction to their “project” when they bought the club. When so many predicted domination through their resources they simply cannot do that now.
It's possible but I think unlikely. Firstly, it would be a pretty big backwards step in their PR onslaught of the sporting world and secondly, i'm not sure they are focussed on the quick splurge. The first players they bought were the likes of Dan Burn and Matt Targett, which hardly screams let's get the cheque book out and splash the cash.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 19, 2024, 12:49:25 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on January 19, 2024, 12:52:30 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 19, 2024, 01:11:40 PM
As Forest then decided to wait a further 2 months until Levy's wonderful negotiating skills kicked in, any goodwill they hoped from the PL would have vanished. In theory they were as desperate to sell in June as they were in August so the "lets wait and hope Spurs sell Kane and then overbid for Johnson" was as much a gamble as "lets hope he doesn't get injured whilst he helps us win valuable points this season, but inform the PL we will be selling soon, promise....."
Post by: Drummond on January 19, 2024, 02:03:13 PM
I don't see any way the Forest excuse stands. They want 7 full transfer windows when everyone else has 6 for FFP. They sold him on the last day of that 7th window. If it was allowed as an excuse then loads of clubs can try and go down that route. And as i've said, if Johnson had gotten himself crocked in the matches he played during window 7, or in training, what was their plan as no one would be spending nearly £50m on him if he'd just done a Mings or Buendia.
I think the fact that he actually played during Window 7 is the issue. If he hadn't played for them whilst awaiting clearance or whatever, then you could see some mitigation, but if he actually played, then there's none.
Post by: AV82EC on January 19, 2024, 02:10:58 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 19, 2024, 02:12:52 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 19, 2024, 03:32:13 PM
Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
Post by: chrisw1 on January 19, 2024, 04:00:53 PM
And this just goes to show what a great job Levy did for them compared to a combination of Ellis, Lerner and shit shoes for us.Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
I can't be arsed to look at the actual stats, but when Levy took over we were consistently finishing above Spurs. They may not have won anything, but in that time he's taken them to regular CL football, established them as a fixture in the 'Sky 6' and built them a world-class billion-pound stadium. He may be a bit of a prick and not quite the transfer negotiator he thinks he is, but the difference in our paths in that period has been stark.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 19, 2024, 05:41:39 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 19, 2024, 06:46:09 PM
And this just goes to show what a great job Levy did for them compared to a combination of Ellis, Lerner and shit shoes for us.Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
I can't be arsed to look at the actual stats, but when Levy took over we were consistently finishing above Spurs. They may not have won anything, but in that time he's taken them to regular CL football, established them as a fixture in the 'Sky 6' and built them a world-class billion-pound stadium. He may be a bit of a prick and not quite the transfer negotiator he thinks he is, but the difference in our paths in that period has been stark.
I think people forget that Spurs had a billionaire owner in Joe Lewis/Enic for a lot longer then we did and their best period came more because they happened to stumble across the best English striker of the current generation then because of any real wheeler dealing. I would argue that Levy has probably held them back more then helped them over the 22 years he has been there.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 19, 2024, 07:11:20 PM
And this just goes to show what a great job Levy did for them compared to a combination of Ellis, Lerner and shit shoes for us.Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
I can't be arsed to look at the actual stats, but when Levy took over we were consistently finishing above Spurs. They may not have won anything, but in that time he's taken them to regular CL football, established them as a fixture in the 'Sky 6' and built them a world-class billion-pound stadium. He may be a bit of a prick and not quite the transfer negotiator he thinks he is, but the difference in our paths in that period has been stark.
I think people forget that Spurs had a billionaire owner in Joe Lewis/Enic for a lot longer then we did and their best period came more because they happened to stumble across the best English striker of the current generation then because of any real wheeler dealing. I would argue that Levy has probably held them back more then helped them over the 22 years he has been there.
But then again, Levy managed to hold on to that best English striker for way longer than most clubs would have.
Post by: brontebilly on January 19, 2024, 07:40:15 PM
And this just goes to show what a great job Levy did for them compared to a combination of Ellis, Lerner and shit shoes for us.Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
I can't be arsed to look at the actual stats, but when Levy took over we were consistently finishing above Spurs. They may not have won anything, but in that time he's taken them to regular CL football, established them as a fixture in the 'Sky 6' and built them a world-class billion-pound stadium. He may be a bit of a prick and not quite the transfer negotiator he thinks he is, but the difference in our paths in that period has been stark.
I think people forget that Spurs had a billionaire owner in Joe Lewis/Enic for a lot longer then we did and their best period came more because they happened to stumble across the best English striker of the current generation then because of any real wheeler dealing. I would argue that Levy has probably held them back more then helped them over the 22 years he has been there.
Maybe they deserve credit for unearthing said striker from their academy? Spurs were a nothing club really on a par with West Ham operating from a decrepit stadium before Levy's time. They have the infrastructure in place now, and the coach, to really challenge for a PL title over next few years I think.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 20, 2024, 12:15:48 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 20, 2024, 07:45:49 AM
This is all getting dangerously close to Daniel Levy/Spurs love-in territory.Of all the things to dislike about Spurs, for me the worst is the adoption of When the Saints, as if it’s their on anthem, they even have a wanky trumpet version to “ set the scene” with a bloke standing in a platform and playing the trumpet before kick off. Twats.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 20, 2024, 08:09:09 AM
Post by: Dave P on January 20, 2024, 08:19:49 AM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 20, 2024, 08:46:12 AM
I’m sure stadium costs aren’t included in FFP? Everton were done partly for taking out a loan and claiming it was for the stadium but used it for general club running costs.
That’s what I thought too, but Everton were stung by it (the interest bit anyway). I think you’re probably correct that Everton have been a bit loose with how the stadium loan was spent but it strikes me as a grey area. A club burdened with stadium debt is okay but one that buys too many players is not.
Post by: Villan82 on January 20, 2024, 08:50:53 AM
I’m sure stadium costs aren’t included in FFP? Everton were done partly for taking out a loan and claiming it was for the stadium but used it for general club running costs.
Correct.
The club have just cancelled the biggest refurbishment of Villa Park since 2001 and they have given us no explanation. It stinks of a really, really short-sighted sighted decision in these circumstances and is just going to prevent us capitalising on the Emery era.
Post by: Gareth on January 20, 2024, 09:50:47 AM
Post by: Chris Smith on January 20, 2024, 10:07:04 AM
And this just goes to show what a great job Levy did for them compared to a combination of Ellis, Lerner and shit shoes for us.Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
I can't be arsed to look at the actual stats, but when Levy took over we were consistently finishing above Spurs. They may not have won anything, but in that time he's taken them to regular CL football, established them as a fixture in the 'Sky 6' and built them a world-class billion-pound stadium. He may be a bit of a prick and not quite the transfer negotiator he thinks he is, but the difference in our paths in that period has been stark.
I think people forget that Spurs had a billionaire owner in Joe Lewis/Enic for a lot longer then we did and their best period came more because they happened to stumble across the best English striker of the current generation then because of any real wheeler dealing. I would argue that Levy has probably held them back more then helped them over the 22 years he has been there.
Maybe they deserve credit for unearthing said striker from their academy? Spurs were a nothing club really on a par with West Ham operating from a decrepit stadium before Levy's time. They have the infrastructure in place now, and the coach, to really challenge for a PL title over next few years I think.
I think he came through the Arsenal academy.
Post by: HolteL4 on January 20, 2024, 10:13:23 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
It's fundamentally flawed. Player trading isn't like umbrellas or stocks, there are only limited trading periods. Drawing a line during one is idiotic. Forest obviously gambled here, what if no club came in hard for Johnson and they ended up selling him for less than Brentford's bid. But it was a calculated gamble, clubs always get desperate (and cashed up) near the end of the window and so it proved here.
I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?
Post by: jwarry on January 20, 2024, 10:16:37 AM
And this just goes to show what a great job Levy did for them compared to a combination of Ellis, Lerner and shit shoes for us.Another thing people forget is that Spurs entry into the so called big 6 was on the back of a decent Manager, player trading and driving commercial performance. They were probably pretty similar to us in the late noughties but over the next 10 years as we stagnated they drove forwards. We can catch up but player trading will be part of that equation.
In the lst 30 years, Villa & Spurs have won the same amount of trophies & Villa have finished higher than Spurs in the table more times than not.
And thats without us being in the league for three hears & having to go through Lerners divorce & then that Del Boy type imbecile from China...
I can't be arsed to look at the actual stats, but when Levy took over we were consistently finishing above Spurs. They may not have won anything, but in that time he's taken them to regular CL football, established them as a fixture in the 'Sky 6' and built them a world-class billion-pound stadium. He may be a bit of a prick and not quite the transfer negotiator he thinks he is, but the difference in our paths in that period has been stark.
I think people forget that Spurs had a billionaire owner in Joe Lewis/Enic for a lot longer then we did and their best period came more because they happened to stumble across the best English striker of the current generation then because of any real wheeler dealing. I would argue that Levy has probably held them back more then helped them over the 22 years he has been there.
Maybe they deserve credit for unearthing said striker from their academy? Spurs were a nothing club really on a par with West Ham operating from a decrepit stadium before Levy's time. They have the infrastructure in place now, and the coach, to really challenge for a PL title over next few years I think.
I think he came through the Arsenal academy.
According to Wiki
“ Kane first played for a local club, Ridgeway Rovers, and joined the Arsenal youth academy when he was eight years old. He was released after one season for being "a bit chubby" and not "very athletic", according to Liam Brady who was then in charge of Arsenal's academy.‘
😂
Post by: Gareth on January 20, 2024, 10:18:32 AM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
It's fundamentally flawed. Player trading isn't like umbrellas or stocks, there are only limited trading periods. Drawing a line during one is idiotic. Forest obviously gambled here, what if no club came in hard for Johnson and they ended up selling him for less than Brentford's bid. But it was a calculated gamble, clubs always get desperate (and cashed up) near the end of the window and so it proved here.
I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?
Even if that is true they still broke the rules, all it needs is clubs like Saudi owned Newcastle & Saudi financed Chelsea to make bids for each others players to scam the system.
They rolled the dice, it failed…they need to take their punishment -this is not a minor infringement, they tried to scam the system
Post by: Somniloquism on January 20, 2024, 02:09:18 PM
I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?
Forest themselves have argued they deliberately didn’t sell him in June because they wanted to get more money, not that the player wouldn’t leave unless a specific club was involved. But even if there was some truth, it shows even more fallacy on why relying on selling a player so late in the finances (assuming the PL would have accepted that time frame) was a stupid idea as the player has also got to want to leave. And again it also seems to ride in the face of the “we sold so late to get a good deal so we didn’t look desperate to sell” if the player was already aware of potential spurs interest in June, then Spurs would probably have been aware that Forest needed to sell from the same mechanism.
Post by: HolteL4 on January 20, 2024, 04:40:01 PM
I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?
Forest themselves have argued they deliberately didn’t sell him in June because they wanted to get more money, not that the player wouldn’t leave unless a specific club was involved. But even if there was some truth, it shows even more fallacy on why relying on selling a player so late in the finances (assuming the PL would have accepted that time frame) was a stupid idea as the player has also got to want to leave. And again it also seems to ride in the face of the “we sold so late to get a good deal so we didn’t look desperate to sell” if the player was already aware of potential spurs interest in June, then Spurs would probably have been aware that Forest needed to sell from the same mechanism.
There is no doubt Forrest broke the rules and in my opinion they are just trying to get a lesser sentence not pleading innocence. But if Spurs knew this Levy would have waited and waited in the hope to get a cheaper deal hoping Forest got more and more desperate as time went on. Don't forget Spurs put a £5 million plus Josh Onomah bid for Grealish when we were desperate.
Post by: Smithy on January 20, 2024, 07:50:46 PM
I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.
Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.
But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.
I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.
If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.
Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.
It's fundamentally flawed. Player trading isn't like umbrellas or stocks, there are only limited trading periods. Drawing a line during one is idiotic. Forest obviously gambled here, what if no club came in hard for Johnson and they ended up selling him for less than Brentford's bid. But it was a calculated gamble, clubs always get desperate (and cashed up) near the end of the window and so it proved here.
I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?
Even if that is true they still broke the rules, all it needs is clubs like Saudi owned Newcastle & Saudi financed Chelsea to make bids for each others players to scam the system.
They rolled the dice, it failed…they need to take their punishment -this is not a minor infringement, they tried to scam the system
Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them. I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules. So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.
It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same. They were screwed either way.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 20, 2024, 08:07:48 PM
Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them. I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules. So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.
It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same. They were screwed either way.
A position they got themselves into by purchasing before selling...
Post by: Risso on January 21, 2024, 11:22:00 AM
Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them. I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules. So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.
It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same. They were screwed either way.
Or maybe they could have not bought a couple of the players in their supermarket sweep in the first place? Breaching FFP doesn't just happen overnight, it's a cumulative effect and one that is very easily calculated as you go along. Eg buy player X at £40m on a four year contract, that's going to give us £10m a year amortisation and whatever his wages are. Don't buy him, and we won't have those costs. It's really very simple, and they're not exactly dealing with millions of transactions.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 21, 2024, 11:31:55 AM
exactly, it’s all of their own making.Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them. I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules. So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.
It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same. They were screwed either way.
Or maybe they could have not bought a couple of the players in their supermarket sweep in the first place? Breaching FFP doesn't just happen overnight, it's a cumulative effect and one that is very easily calculated as you go along. Eg buy player X at £40m on a four year contract, that's going to give us £10m a year amortisation and whatever his wages are. Don't buy him, and we won't have those costs. It's really very simple, and they're not exactly dealing with millions of transactions.
Post by: Toronto Villa on January 21, 2024, 02:54:54 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on January 21, 2024, 03:30:18 PM
Post by: Risso on January 21, 2024, 03:35:17 PM
This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.
I think that's exactly what it is. Or the Man City version is/was, spend what we like, tie them up in legal knots for a decade, then deal with a year or two's punishment when we've successfully established ourselves as the most successful club in Europe.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 21, 2024, 03:54:00 PM
This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.
I think that's exactly what it is. Or the Man City version is/was, spend what we like, tie them up in legal knots for a decade, then deal with a year or two's punishment when we've successfully established ourselves as the most successful club in Europe.
This is why any gains they have made while cheating their way to the top need to be removed.
Titles, prize money, league spot, everything.
It wont happen.
But it should...
Post by: Drummond on January 21, 2024, 07:30:41 PM
Anyway, on the ManC thing, relegation through the divisions, removal of all silverware in any period they've been found guilty, a further points deduction, a curb in their FFP figures in future years and the owners being declared unsuitable would be about right.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 21, 2024, 08:25:54 PM
Post by: charlatan on January 21, 2024, 08:52:13 PM
This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.except that the ground grading criteria were often far dafter
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 21, 2024, 08:55:42 PM
I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?
See, that is where i have zero sympathy for Forest, and I also think is an example of FFP actually successfully doing what it is meant to do.
If you're prepared to risk the financial future of the club on flying that close to the sun and relying on one transfer happening in days rather than weeks, then that is absolutely not responsible financial management.
It is like when we went to the play off final against Fulham, with failure meaning administration.
Utterly reprehensible 'management' that deserves to be punished.
Post by: N'ZMAV on January 21, 2024, 08:58:10 PM
they didn't really need those 40 odd players they signed within a year. They couldn't even register them all, so what was the point?exactly, it’s all of their own making.Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them. I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules. So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.
It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same. They were screwed either way.
Or maybe they could have not bought a couple of the players in their supermarket sweep in the first place? Breaching FFP doesn't just happen overnight, it's a cumulative effect and one that is very easily calculated as you go along. Eg buy player X at £40m on a four year contract, that's going to give us £10m a year amortisation and whatever his wages are. Don't buy him, and we won't have those costs. It's really very simple, and they're not exactly dealing with millions of transactions.
Post by: PaulWinch again on January 21, 2024, 09:04:11 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on January 22, 2024, 08:36:46 AM
They bought 24 players... yet somehow still left themselves needing to loan 5 more across the season?
Two players were bought for over £5m combined, and immediately loaned out to the owner's other club, Olympiacos...
Two other players made no appearances at all, and only ten of the 24 made half a season's worth or more.
It's a disgusting example of complete mismanagement, not a technicality, simple mistake, or a matter of bad timing.
Post by: eamonn on January 22, 2024, 09:30:07 AM
Post by: brontebilly on January 22, 2024, 01:31:45 PM
I don't see how forest can blame anyone apart from themselves.
They bought 24 players... yet somehow still left themselves needing to loan 5 more across the season?
Two players were bought for over £5m combined, and immediately loaned out to the owner's other club, Olympiacos...
Two other players made no appearances at all, and only ten of the 24 made half a season's worth or more.
It's a disgusting example of complete mismanagement, not a technicality, simple mistake, or a matter of bad timing.
Lots of their business made no sense and I'm surprised Cooper didn't leave last summer, to selfishly protect his own reputation if nothing else. It doesnt look as if he was having much of a say with most of those transfers and a big squad is impossible to manage. But their promotion was a bit of a miracle really, heavily reliant on loan players like Keinan Davis, Spence, Garner. They were always going to have to try a last minute shopping dash that summer to replace those loan players alone and add then numbers to their squad. I'm sure their fans will say the end justified the means.
Similar to our own first season back really, Drinky was our Shelvey! We signed a lot of very average players too.
Their FFP 'books' balanced at the end of the transfer window with the big sale of Johnson so for me they should be get cut a lot of slack. As for the point they should have cashed in Johnson earlier to stay compliant, fine take 12m or less cash and then play elevated prices to replace him or alternatively struggle to get anyone in and likely get relegated. Either all the transfer window is in scope or none of it.
Post by: itbrvilla on January 22, 2024, 01:43:44 PM
It doesn't make sense. I wonder who the agents 8nvolved were as it feels like some kind of fraud or laundering to me somehow.they didn't really need those 40 odd players they signed within a year. They couldn't even register them all, so what was the point?exactly, it’s all of their own making.Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them. I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules. So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.
It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same. They were screwed either way.
Or maybe they could have not bought a couple of the players in their supermarket sweep in the first place? Breaching FFP doesn't just happen overnight, it's a cumulative effect and one that is very easily calculated as you go along. Eg buy player X at £40m on a four year contract, that's going to give us £10m a year amortisation and whatever his wages are. Don't buy him, and we won't have those costs. It's really very simple, and they're not exactly dealing with millions of transactions.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 22, 2024, 01:44:27 PM
I don't see how forest can blame anyone apart from themselves.
They bought 24 players... yet somehow still left themselves needing to loan 5 more across the season?
Two players were bought for over £5m combined, and immediately loaned out to the owner's other club, Olympiacos...
Two other players made no appearances at all, and only ten of the 24 made half a season's worth or more.
It's a disgusting example of complete mismanagement, not a technicality, simple mistake, or a matter of bad timing.
Lots of their business made no sense and I'm surprised Cooper didn't leave last summer, to selfishly protect his own reputation if nothing else. It doesnt look as if he was having much of a say with most of those transfers and a big squad is impossible to manage. But their promotion was a bit of a miracle really, heavily reliant on loan players like Keinan Davis, Spence, Garner. They were always going to have to try a last minute shopping dash that summer to replace those loan players alone and add then numbers to their squad. I'm sure their fans will say the end justified the means.
Similar to our own first season back really, Drinky was our Shelvey! We signed a lot of very average players too.
Their FFP 'books' balanced at the end of the transfer window with the big sale of Johnson so for me they should be get cut a lot of slack. As for the point they should have cashed in Johnson earlier to stay compliant, fine take 12m or less cash and then play elevated prices to replace him or alternatively struggle to get anyone in and likely get relegated. Either all the transfer window is in scope or none of it.
But not by the FFP / P&S date.
They didn't have to buy 24 players & spend an amount of money to the point of selling Johnson became the tipping point.
I have no problem with Forest being punished for breaking the FFP / P&S rules. Nor Everton.
Nor us for that matter, if we fuck up over it.
The biggest issue with this whole FFP / P&S farce is that Chelsea & ManC haven't been dealt with in the same manner as Everton & Forest yet.
If they had been, I don't think the numbers of sympathy that has come Everton & Forests way would be there.
They tried to cheat the system that has forced Villa to sell useful academy players & have to navigate the circling of those that cheated their way towards higher profits, & therefore higher amounts to spend on players, looking curiously at our top players with rubbing hands & a smug smirking c**tish smile.
So I have absolutely zero sympathy for either Everton or Forest, anymore than I do for those cheating c**nts who are bathing in the rewards of their cheating.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 22, 2024, 01:51:57 PM
They chose to buy and loan in a stupid amount of players. They chose to be non compliant. They chose not to sell Johnson in a window that would have made them compliant, which was by the end of Jan last year, and instead not sell him until 7 months later. They want 7 transfer windows and three and a half years to be compliant while us and other clubs are going by the rules which is 6 windows and three years.
And they benefited from having Johnson play 20 odd gamas after Jan last year. How are they doing anything but benefitting from it and trying to give themselves an advantage over the other clubs down the bottom of the league?
Post by: Gareth on January 22, 2024, 02:04:54 PM
I don't see how forest can blame anyone apart from themselves.
They bought 24 players... yet somehow still left themselves needing to loan 5 more across the season?
Two players were bought for over £5m combined, and immediately loaned out to the owner's other club, Olympiacos...
Two other players made no appearances at all, and only ten of the 24 made half a season's worth or more.
It's a disgusting example of complete mismanagement, not a technicality, simple mistake, or a matter of bad timing.
Lots of their business made no sense and I'm surprised Cooper didn't leave last summer, to selfishly protect his own reputation if nothing else. It doesnt look as if he was having much of a say with most of those transfers and a big squad is impossible to manage. But their promotion was a bit of a miracle really, heavily reliant on loan players like Keinan Davis, Spence, Garner. They were always going to have to try a last minute shopping dash that summer to replace those loan players alone and add then numbers to their squad. I'm sure their fans will say the end justified the means.
Similar to our own first season back really, Drinky was our Shelvey! We signed a lot of very average players too.
Their FFP 'books' balanced at the end of the transfer window with the big sale of Johnson so for me they should be get cut a lot of slack. As for the point they should have cashed in Johnson earlier to stay compliant, fine take 12m or less cash and then play elevated prices to replace him or alternatively struggle to get anyone in and likely get relegated. Either all the transfer window is in scope or none of it.
They tried to cheat a rule that they knew about from day one, they failed.
If they are still in PL next season they will have cheated and succeeded & will feel the end justified the means.
Rolled the dice & gambled, hopefully if proven it results in relegation for both them and Everton…that’s the deterrent that should apply to all
Post by: Hookeysmith on January 22, 2024, 03:30:26 PM
Joking aside, if Man City are found guilty then can the owners be considered unsuitable? By trying to cheat the system then its not a hard argument to make and presumably the directive has come from the very top.
So how would they punish them if deemed unfit to own - make them sell the club?
By the time this comes to an actual sentence the game would have moved on. Guadliola would be retired, none of the current players will be around and more than likely they would not be playing under Premiership rules as they would of achieved the Euro super league all the other corrupt money loving fuckers wanted
Post by: jwarry on January 23, 2024, 01:24:43 PM
Joking aside, if Man City are found guilty then can the owners be considered unsuitable? By trying to cheat the system then its not a hard argument to make and presumably the directive has come from the very top.
So how would they punish them if deemed unfit to own - make them sell the club?
By the time this comes to an actual sentence the game would have moved on. Guadliola would be retired, none of the current players will be around and more than likely they would not be playing under Premiership rules as they would of achieved the Euro super league all the other corrupt money loving fuckers wanted
Bit like Chelsea where we all hoped they would drop like a stone after the Russian was deemed unfit - but no, because their value had increased by so much when they were cheating, some other stupid billionaires step in and save them, and then have the gall to say to the PL it wasn’t us guv it was the other guys so make sure you are lenient as we’ve been so honest.
Post by: sid1964 on January 23, 2024, 02:57:38 PM
Imagine the anger if they get away with all charges!!!
Post by: GordonCowansisthegreatest on January 23, 2024, 03:04:51 PM
Post by: ASHTONVILLA on January 23, 2024, 03:46:29 PM
Joking aside, if Man City are found guilty then can the owners be considered unsuitable? By trying to cheat the system then its not a hard argument to make and presumably the directive has come from the very top.
They are not exactly flourishing right now.
So how would they punish them if deemed unfit to own - make them sell the club?
By the time this comes to an actual sentence the game would have moved on. Guadliola would be retired, none of the current players will be around and more than likely they would not be playing under Premiership rules as they would of achieved the Euro super league all the other corrupt money loving fuckers wanted
Bit like Chelsea where we all hoped they would drop like a stone after the Russian was deemed unfit - but no, because their value had increased by so much when they were cheating, some other stupid billionaires step in and save them, and then have the gall to say to the PL it wasn’t us guv it was the other guys so make sure you are lenient as we’ve been so honest.
Post by: sid1964 on January 24, 2024, 07:51:36 AM
He made some interesting points on the North Stand / Lower Grounds and our deal with Adidas and also explained FFP (seems as though won't be massively splashing the cash this summer)
Post by: jwarry on January 24, 2024, 08:05:14 AM
Romano
Nottingham Forest and Borussia Dortmund have scheduled new round of talks for Gio Reyna loan deal.
Loan fee and salary coverage still being discussed while Gio has already accepted #NFFC as destination.
His new agent Jorge Mendes is taking care of the deal.
Post by: Dogtanian on January 24, 2024, 08:54:52 AM
Meanwhile Forest continue…..
Romano
Nottingham Forest and Borussia Dortmund have scheduled new round of talks for Gio Reyna loan deal.
Loan fee and salary coverage still being discussed while Gio has already accepted #NFFC as destination.
His new agent Jorge Mendes is taking care of the deal.
Great to see he's got to the end of his DABDA cycle.
Post by: Hookeysmith on January 24, 2024, 01:20:05 PM
Heard a City podcast recently and they are confident that all charges will be found not guilty
Imagine the anger if they get away with all charges!!!
On a serious note - do we expect anything else
Talk of massive points deduction, relegation to the Outer Hebrides league, transfer embargoes are just dreams - they will get a fine at best and then back to business as usual
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 24, 2024, 01:27:05 PM
Heard a City podcast recently and they are confident that all charges will be found not guilty
Imagine the anger if they get away with all charges!!!
On a serious note - do we expect anything else
Talk of massive points deduction, relegation to the Outer Hebrides league, transfer embargoes are just dreams - they will get a fine at best and then back to business as usual
And continue to benefit from the advantages of all of the ill gotten gains that have taken them from fucking nobodies into a footballing powerhouse...
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 24, 2024, 04:24:26 PM
Post by: LeeB on January 24, 2024, 04:26:22 PM
Looks like FFP (or P&S) could get tighter in line with UEFA. https://twitter.com/johntownley11/status/1750191576020664417
Fascinating stuff.
Post by: London Villan on January 24, 2024, 04:31:38 PM
Post by: Ads on January 24, 2024, 05:03:29 PM
Looks like FFP (or P&S) could get tighter in line with UEFA. https://twitter.com/johntownley11/status/1750191576020664417
And I guess that's the end of us then and just about anybody else outside 3 or 4 clubs. If 14 clubs vote for this then they're turkeys voting for Christmas.
Post by: Gareth on January 24, 2024, 05:05:04 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 24, 2024, 05:11:08 PM
Post by: Ads on January 24, 2024, 05:17:00 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 24, 2024, 05:19:16 PM
So the big revenue clubs just implement another way to stop anyone else competing
The Champions League has always been EUFA's version of a "European Super League".
It's why they took the threat of an actual "ESL" being created for them to get off their arses & really make some noise about the potential threat to their cash cow. Heaven forbid they make the same noise about racism or the like.
Keeping the main clubs that bring them the most revenue in the tournament as continual participants has always been their intention.
Post by: Gareth on January 24, 2024, 05:35:15 PM
It's 90% soft cap at the moment, so our spending is capped at £41m given wages. Not sure how sales impact it, guess they do.
Explains why we have a small squad of first team players….also explains why we seemed keen to jettison Digne & his big wages in the summer
Post by: jwarry on January 24, 2024, 06:32:55 PM
Heard a City podcast recently and they are confident that all charges will be found not guilty
Imagine the anger if they get away with all charges!!!
Good article in The Times today by Martin Samuel who basically is saying the Citeh case is complicated because the government is involved as they are dealing technically with another country (ie Citehs owners). So it’s bigger than merely punishing a football club
Post by: tomd2103 on January 25, 2024, 12:40:17 AM
Looks like FFP (or P&S) could get tighter in line with UEFA. https://twitter.com/johntownley11/status/1750191576020664417
And I guess that's the end of us then and just about anybody else outside 3 or 4 clubs. If 14 clubs vote for this then they're turkeys voting for Christmas.
It would give the lower half Premier League clubs a big advantage over smaller clubs coming up from the Championship, so you never know.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 25, 2024, 06:40:41 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on January 25, 2024, 09:13:03 AM
Digne is on £120k a week. Are his wages that big? He's been one of our best players this season and was a big contributor to getting us to the top 3. I can understand why we would want to cash in given his age and contract length, but surely we're not in a position where we are that uncompetitive on what wages we can pay?It's 90% soft cap at the moment, so our spending is capped at £41m given wages. Not sure how sales impact it, guess they do.
Explains why we have a small squad of first team players….also explains why we seemed keen to jettison Digne & his big wages in the summer
Post by: Gareth on January 25, 2024, 09:17:15 AM
Digne is on £120k a week. Are his wages that big? He's been one of our best players this season and was a big contributor to getting us to the top 3. I can understand why we would want to cash in given his age and contract length, but surely we're not in a position where we are that uncompetitive on what wages we can pay?It's 90% soft cap at the moment, so our spending is capped at £41m given wages. Not sure how sales impact it, guess they do.
Explains why we have a small squad of first team players….also explains why we seemed keen to jettison Digne & his big wages in the summer
It is a big wage if you can swap him for someone on 50k a week….i agree that he has been one of our best players this season but i think back in the summer had Moreno been fit a lot were happy to let him go. Wouldn’t want him leaving now, in fact he’d be my starting left back with Moreno to come on after an hour.
Post by: chrisw1 on January 25, 2024, 09:49:50 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 25, 2024, 10:33:19 AM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list. Randy Lerner is semi-tumescent in anticipation of next year.
Yes, they have our revenue as €250m. I know it’s not much in relation to the clubs we find ourselves competing with but it’s quite a jump from the year before.
Post by: eamonn on January 25, 2024, 10:37:19 AM
Realistically how many top 6 PL players will be on £50k pw?
Digne is one of our highest earners though. Most of our starting XI will be on less and he's one of the replaceable ones.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 25, 2024, 10:42:01 AM
Realistically how many top 6 PL players will be on £50k pw?
Digne is one of our highest earners though. Most of our starting XI will be on less and he's one of the replaceable ones.
I read he’s on £8.5m a year, somewhere on the net, no idea how credible.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 25, 2024, 11:04:05 AM
Digne is one of our highest earners though. Most of our starting XI will be on less and he's one of the replaceable ones.
I read he’s on £8.5m a year, somewhere on the net, no idea how credible.
Think it's closer to £6-6.5m a year. £120-125k a week is the figure I've usually seen for Digne.
Post by: Dogtanian on January 25, 2024, 11:18:34 AM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list. Randy Lerner is semi-tumescent in anticipation of next year.
Yes, they have our revenue as €250m. I know it’s not much in relation to the clubs we find ourselves competing with but it’s quite a jump from the year before.
Yeah, and that's not taking into account the ticket price hike of this season, the new shirt sponsor revenue increase, or all the terrace view and lower grounds loot. Plus this season we've already netted another 7m EURO in prize money from the ECL, plus the extra match day revenue from five additional home fixtures in that competition.
So we're very much in the running to be in the top 20 next season.
Post by: ian c. on January 25, 2024, 11:47:19 AM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list.
I'm outside Nuneaton Borough's ground telling anyone who'll listen that they'll never sing that.
Post by: AV82EC on January 25, 2024, 12:01:14 PM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list. Randy Lerner is semi-tumescent in anticipation of next year.
I’d love to know how they calculated that as we haven’t even announced our 22/23 Company accounts yet?
We’ve also stayed stable at 21st exactly where we were last year but with increased revenue of €250m up from €210m last year.
The big jump into the top 20 will probably come next year. My cup runneth over….
Post by: eamonn on January 25, 2024, 12:14:40 PM
Quote
"My cup runneth over" is a quotation from the Hebrew Bible (Psalms:23:5) and means "I have more than enough for my needs"
I always thought it was used as a sarcastic quip, i.e "Ooh, I can't bear the suspense". So if someone's cup runneth over, it means they have more than is required? Bad English, please make it make sense.
Post by: Smithy on January 25, 2024, 12:22:14 PM
Realistically how many top 6 PL players will be on £50k pw?
There is a table that goes around every now and again, showing teams ranked by total wage bill. It is unerringly close to the actual final league table every year, with one or two exceptions. Inevitably, the more you pay for wages, the higher up you finish. There is the odd anomaly, with someone paying loads in wages and still finishing terribly (Chelsea last year), and teams finishing far higher than their wage bill (Brighton last year), but if you want to be playing consistently at the top end of the table, you need to pay top 6 wages. And that means most first 11 players on £100k+ a week.
Digne is on top 6 wages, and I have no issue with that, the issue is he was given that contract before we were top 6 side. There will be plenty who aren't on top 6 wages, but will be demanding them pretty soon. We also have to be careful to avoid giving out top 6 wages before we have top 6 commercial income, that way FFP disaster lies...
Post by: eamonn on January 25, 2024, 12:26:23 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on January 25, 2024, 12:28:43 PM
Didn't we spend most of the 2010s under-achieving relative to salaries paid?
I remember in 09/10 when we lost out on the last CL place to someone called 'Spuds', despite spending more than them in wages. So I wouldn't be surprised.
Post by: AV82EC on January 25, 2024, 12:32:44 PM
Didn't we spend most of the 2010s under-achieving relative to salaries paid?
I remember in 09/10 when we lost out on the last CL place to someone called 'Spuds', despite spending more than them in wages. So I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh god, the terrible realisation of a possible discussion of Spurs Wage bill.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 25, 2024, 12:35:39 PM
Didn't we spend most of the 2010s under-achieving relative to salaries paid?
I remember in 09/10 when we lost out on the last CL place to someone called 'Spuds', despite spending more than them in wages. So I wouldn't be surprised.
That was about the time we started signing shit like Habib Beye & Steve Sidwell & the likes ManC gutted us for our best players...
Post by: Gareth on January 25, 2024, 01:50:25 PM
Didn't we spend most of the 2010s under-achieving relative to salaries paid?
I remember in 09/10 when we lost out on the last CL place to someone called 'Spuds', despite spending more than them in wages. So I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh god, the terrible realisation of a possible discussion of Spurs Wage bill.
Just ask the owners ‘friends’ - they’ll probably have a copy of the wage bill to share
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 25, 2024, 01:50:52 PM
Do the PL really want City punished, therefore admitting all their trophies and all the entertainment they have bought since 2008, was basically done by cheating. That would seriously damage the PL brand???
It’s all very dark and a lot of unknowns. Added with the Everton and Forest situation, it’s all just a big mess.
The PL isnt an entity, it is 20 separate clubs with their own interests. Almost all of them would love to see Man City knocked off their perch. Especially those that have complied with the rules
Question and point still stands.
If Citeh do get punished in the way they should then the brand is going to get damaged but it will move on. If Citeh do not get punished or punished appropriately then I think the league will go into meltdown. The likes of Liverpool, Manure, us and most of the others are not going to stand for that.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 25, 2024, 01:55:52 PM
Yep, I don’t think it’s possible for the PL to survive if they don’t take action against Citeh.Do the PL really want City punished, therefore admitting all their trophies and all the entertainment they have bought since 2008, was basically done by cheating. That would seriously damage the PL brand???
It’s all very dark and a lot of unknowns. Added with the Everton and Forest situation, it’s all just a big mess.
The PL isnt an entity, it is 20 separate clubs with their own interests. Almost all of them would love to see Man City knocked off their perch. Especially those that have complied with the rules
Question and point still stands.
If Citeh do get punished in the way they should then the brand is going to get damaged but it will move on. If Citeh do not get punished or punished appropriately then I think the league will go into meltdown. The likes of Liverpool, Manure, us and most of the others are not going to stand for that.
Post by: Simon Page on January 25, 2024, 03:03:17 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 25, 2024, 03:39:30 PM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list. Randy Lerner is semi-tumescent in anticipation of next year.
I’d love to know how they calculated that as we haven’t even announced our 22/23 Company accounts yet?
The club probably volunteers the figure in order to be included in the survey. How accurate did the €210m turn out to be last year?
EDIT: just converted it, it was pretty much spot on.
Post by: AV82EC on January 25, 2024, 03:43:28 PM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list. Randy Lerner is semi-tumescent in anticipation of next year.
I’d love to know how they calculated that as we haven’t even announced our 22/23 Company accounts yet?
The club probably volunteers the figure in order to be included in the survey. How accurate did the €210m turn out to be last year?
It was spot on when I did the currency conversion so you’re probably right Perce.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 25, 2024, 03:47:40 PM
We're 21st in the Deloitte money list. Randy Lerner is semi-tumescent in anticipation of next year.
I’d love to know how they calculated that as we haven’t even announced our 22/23 Company accounts yet?
The club probably volunteers the figure in order to be included in the survey. How accurate did the €210m turn out to be last year?
It was spot on when I did the currency conversion so you’re probably right Perce.
Yes, I stopped being lazy and did it as well. Plenty of increase in the next two years as well, considering higher League positions (fingers crossed), higher gate receipts, UECL prize money and Adidas. Stadium naming rights and new shirt sponsor to come?
The Warehouse will be a boost if they get two or three thousand in there every game like they’re hoping.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 25, 2024, 04:36:28 PM
Same with Lower Grounds and Terrace View. We have to have them, because it is all revenue and what not, but the numbers involved are still very small in the bigger picture.
This is one of the things that confuses me about the North Stand. It is a clear way to introduce 10,000 more paying customers, and with a new stand establishing a pretty high cost point with decent (and revenue raising) corporate facilities.
Post by: paul_e on January 25, 2024, 05:15:08 PM
Stuff like the Warehouse will contribute barely anything to those figures. Even if, say, 2,000 people spent an average of £20 there every home match (which is on the high side), that's less than 800k for the season.
Same with Lower Grounds and Terrace View. We have to have them, because it is all revenue and what not, but the numbers involved are still very small in the bigger picture.
This is one of the things that confuses me about the North Stand. It is a clear way to introduce 10,000 more paying customers, and with a new stand establishing a pretty high cost point with decent (and revenue raising) corporate facilities.
The thing there though is that the Warehouse can be used a lot more often than that, Make it a concert/conference/wedding/etc facility and even if you only get 25-30% occupancy through the year that would quickly add up to a lot more than the £800k you mention. I'd expect they'll have aimed for it to be at least £4-5m extra with all the other stuff included. Not breaking the bank but exactly the sort of small gains that we can make quite quickly and cheaply that Heck will be looking for, especially given the costs to build it aren't included in FFP/P&S.
Post by: Villan82 on January 25, 2024, 05:49:17 PM
Stuff like the Warehouse will contribute barely anything to those figures. Even if, say, 2,000 people spent an average of £20 there every home match (which is on the high side), that's less than 800k for the season.
Same with Lower Grounds and Terrace View. We have to have them, because it is all revenue and what not, but the numbers involved are still very small in the bigger picture.
This is one of the things that confuses me about the North Stand. It is a clear way to introduce 10,000 more paying customers, and with a new stand establishing a pretty high cost point with decent (and revenue raising) corporate facilities.
Correct. The original plans showed a lot of joined up thinking. Get more people to the ground. Offer them more things to do and more spaces to be either side of kick off so that there isn't a great exodus all at once. it also showed joined up thinking in terms of revenue raising outside match day, with 'Villa Live' as a space for events, conference, retail etc as you see at a lot of big stadia now. It also thought in terms of the wider area as a more connected place. I think that video on YT even said 'A new era for Witton and Aston'.
More than that, it was s statement that we are here to stay in the location and NSWE see themselves as here for the long-term.
The Heck announcement has been really unsettling on a number of fronts. They can't reasonably expect to so publicly show such ambition in terms of the future of Villa Park and then almost sneak out the news they aren't doing it any more. The whole thing just doesn't stack up
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 25, 2024, 09:45:20 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68086979
Post by: lovejoy on January 26, 2024, 07:42:24 AM
Post by: rob_bridge on January 26, 2024, 08:59:27 AM
The bottom line is we need to expand the stadium even to compete with the likes of Newcastle and West Ham.
We do - there is nothing of Villa Park's size within a 50 miles radius. We need to keep it that way.
Post by: Villan82 on January 26, 2024, 09:28:11 AM
Now we have one of our employees basically telling us 'The ground is good enough for you lot as it is and we don't want to keep up with peer clubs'. Even if they see sense and get the wheels in motion again surely we have lost another two years so instead of being ready in 2026 we will be lucky to have it for 2028 or 2029 and who knows where things will be on the pitch by then. I just don't get it.
Post by: Rigadon on January 26, 2024, 09:32:02 AM
It's all very curious. I think it was 2021 they first mentioned redevelopment. We got drawings in Spring 2022 and we got a video render in December 2022. We were told May 2024 commencement.
Now we have one of our employees basically telling us 'The ground is good enough for you lot as it is and we don't want to keep up with peer clubs'. Even if they see sense and get the wheels in motion again surely we have lost another two years so instead of being ready in 2026 we will be lucky to have it for 2028 or 2029 and who knows where things will be on the pitch by then. I just don't get it.
I can only think it's one of two things. 1. They don't want to play our first CL campaign in a building site. 2. They have rethought developing the current ground and now favour a new stadium, somewhere nearby / not as nearby as it would need to be in order not to piss most fans off. Or, it's a mix of ethnic two things.
Just deciding that they can't be arsed anymore seems too illogical, especially since they've recently brought in more funding.
Post by: Risso on January 26, 2024, 09:47:27 AM
Post by: Rigadon on January 26, 2024, 09:54:08 AM
Holding off/cancelling a development for a competition you haven't even qualified for yet would be utterly mental.
I know what you mean and agree to some extent. But part of me would prefer to see the team play in VP as it is now rather than with extensive works being done. If I had to guess it's because they've decide on a new stadium.
Post by: Smithy on January 26, 2024, 10:05:06 AM
Holding off/cancelling a development for a competition you haven't even qualified for yet would be utterly mental.
is it possible that we're so close to our FFP limit that losing the 5/6/7 million a year in gate receipts from that stand could give us problems in the next two years? Even then, surely we'd be better off selling a player than cancelling a long-term redevelopment?
My suspicion is that our longer-term plans have changed - or are a bit up in the air - and no one wants to commit £100m to a project that might be looked at as a "mistake" in 5-10 years. Whether they want to be more ambitious with the redevelopment of the whole stadium, or want to move to another stadium, who knows?
Post by: chrisw1 on January 26, 2024, 10:07:49 AM
Much as I like Villa Park, I almost hope that they have. Because the alternative that they genuinely think the north development was too much too fast is extremely concerning.Holding off/cancelling a development for a competition you haven't even qualified for yet would be utterly mental.
I know what you mean and agree to some extent. But part of me would prefer to see the team play in VP as it is now rather than with extensive works being done. If I had to guess it's because they've decide on a new stadium.
My ideal outcome would be that they are just redesigning the north to be a bit bigger - a few more seats but in particular building far more corporate space. There's a load of space behind the stand and they could make up for some of the shortcomings of the other stands by just building a much deeper development and doubling the originally proposed corporate space in the new stand.
I also think we as fans may have to be a bit less precious about design. If they have to fill the north corners in then so be it. It's still Villa Park and better than an out-of-town shopping centre bowl.
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 31, 2024, 03:52:01 PM
Please...
https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1752692625872986440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1752692625872986440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 31, 2024, 04:13:08 PM
Would somebody please do me the favour of dumbing down the info on the linked tweet so that a mathematical moron can understand what his data means?
Please...
https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1752692625872986440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1752692625872986440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)
Basically just means that we spend close to £200m a year in salaries plus amortised transfer fees. There's a lot more that goes into PSR though so it won't just be a case of revenue less these costs but at least it gives a decent indication of the main areas of expenditure
Post by: pablo_picasso on January 31, 2024, 04:14:19 PM
Would somebody please do me the favour of dumbing down the info on the linked tweet so that a mathematical moron can understand what his data means?
Please...
https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1752692625872986440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1752692625872986440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)
Basically just means that we spend close to £200m a year in salaries plus amortised transfer fees. There's a lot more that goes into PSR though so it won't just be a case of revenue less these costs but at least it gives a decent indication of the main areas of expenditure
Ok. Cheers mate. Thanks for the info. 👌👍
Post by: tomd2103 on January 31, 2024, 06:02:35 PM
Holding off/cancelling a development for a competition you haven't even qualified for yet would be utterly mental.
is it possible that we're so close to our FFP limit that losing the 5/6/7 million a year in gate receipts from that stand could give us problems in the next two years? Even then, surely we'd be better off selling a player than cancelling a long-term redevelopment?
My suspicion is that our longer-term plans have changed - or are a bit up in the air - and no one wants to commit £100m to a project that might be looked at as a "mistake" in 5-10 years. Whether they want to be more ambitious with the redevelopment of the whole stadium, or want to move to another stadium, who knows?
It surely.wasnt a coincidence that the announcement came so soon after that US company came on board. If it's their area of expertise, maybe it was just a case of exploring options with them.before committing to.something pretty major.
The thought of having a stand knocked down during the 150th anniversary might have also been in the thinking.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on January 31, 2024, 06:50:36 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on January 31, 2024, 07:25:48 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
I've started incorporating it into daily life. I think my mom's use of Christmas Puddings is some sort of amortisation shit.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 31, 2024, 07:47:42 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
You use the word "waste" far too liberally there. i'd prefer to say misguided youth that I occasionally dabble in as an adult :P.
Post by: olaftab on January 31, 2024, 08:07:32 PM
Holding off/cancelling a development for a competition you haven't even qualified for yet would be utterly mental.Yup, totally nonsensical. Very much Ellisesque throwing an opportunity away at a crucial time.
Post by: Villan82 on January 31, 2024, 09:07:25 PM
Holding off/cancelling a development for a competition you haven't even qualified for yet would be utterly mental.Yup, totally nonsensical. Very much Ellisesque throwing an opportunity away at a crucial time.
We will rue that decision. One of those ones where your instincts tells you it was the wrong decision.
Post by: SamTheMouse on January 31, 2024, 10:03:04 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
"Microsoft Excel, now available on Playstation 9"!
Post by: LeonW on January 31, 2024, 10:34:33 PM
Post by: Chap on January 31, 2024, 10:53:57 PM
I keep thinking; would Doug E have approved of FFP? My answer; yes. That bothers me.Doug would have invented it.
Post by: LeonW on January 31, 2024, 11:41:32 PM
I keep thinking; would Doug E have approved of FFP? My answer; yes. That bothers me.Doug would have invented it.
FFP and the bicycle kick.
Post by: tomd2103 on February 01, 2024, 12:11:14 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
You might be on to something there. "From the makers of Football Manager comes the new and exciting Football CEO where players can experience the highs and lows of trying to keep on the right side of FFP and avoid costly points deductions".
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
Post by: Chap on February 01, 2024, 07:25:31 AM
Don’t forget Package Holidays!I keep thinking; would Doug E have approved of FFP? My answer; yes. That bothers me.Doug would have invented it.
FFP and the bicycle kick.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 01, 2024, 07:36:26 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
You might be on to something there. "From the makers of Football Manager comes the new and exciting Football CEO where players can experience the highs and lows of trying to keep on the right side of FFP and avoid costly points deductions".
It'll happen, and it will be huge. And it will be depressing.
Post by: Somniloquism on February 01, 2024, 07:54:22 AM
Don’t forget Package Holidays!I keep thinking; would Doug E have approved of FFP? My answer; yes. That bothers me.Doug would have invented it.
FFP and the bicycle kick.
With in-travel sustenance supplied well before the planes decided to do that.
Post by: LeeB on February 01, 2024, 09:03:38 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
You might be on to something there. "From the makers of Football Manager comes the new and exciting Football CEO where players can experience the highs and lows of trying to keep on the right side of FFP and avoid costly points deductions".
It'll happen, and it will be huge. And it will be depressing.
Imagine the Red Hot FFP Chat around the water cooler in the office.
Although on the other hand, anything that ends Fantasy Football chat should be welcomed.
Post by: Clampy on February 01, 2024, 09:07:11 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
You might be on to something there. "From the makers of Football Manager comes the new and exciting Football CEO where players can experience the highs and lows of trying to keep on the right side of FFP and avoid costly points deductions".
It'll happen, and it will be huge. And it will be depressing.
Imagine the Red Hot FFP Chat around the water cooler in the office.
Although on the other hand, anything that ends Fantasy Football chat should be welcomed.
I had Alvarez as my captain last night by the way.
Post by: Dave on February 01, 2024, 09:11:06 AM
Although on the other hand, anything that ends Fantasy Football chat should be welcomed.
"Well, actually, although we lost I had Haaland as my captain so, y'know, actually, it's not all bad..."
Post by: algy on February 01, 2024, 09:19:27 AM
And he taught Charlie Chaplin how to fish.Don’t forget Package Holidays!I keep thinking; would Doug E have approved of FFP? My answer; yes. That bothers me.Doug would have invented it.
FFP and the bicycle kick.
With in-travel sustenance supplied well before the planes decided to do that.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 01, 2024, 09:20:21 AM
Post by: LeeB on February 01, 2024, 09:23:54 AM
Although on the other hand, anything that ends Fantasy Football chat should be welcomed.
"Well, actually, although we lost I had Haaland as my captain so, y'know, actually, it's not all bad..."
Yeah, I don't normally advocate violence but sometimes it feels like it's the only answer.
Post by: Rigadon on February 01, 2024, 09:32:01 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
You might be on to something there. "From the makers of Football Manager comes the new and exciting Football CEO where players can experience the highs and lows of trying to keep on the right side of FFP and avoid costly points deductions".
It'll happen, and it will be huge. And it will be depressing.
I witnessed my prepubescent son playing a game called ‘adventure capitalist’ the other day. From what I gathered you don’t do much other than watch your investment portfolio increase exponentially. I was glowing with pride I can tell ya.
Post by: lovejoy on February 01, 2024, 10:37:36 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
For some thats a career.
Post by: pablo_picasso on February 01, 2024, 10:49:57 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
This...
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 01, 2024, 11:00:49 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
This...
There's no need for them to show their workings out though. It's dull enough when someone who knows what they're talking about goes into it without armchair auditors 'having a go at it'.
Post by: Risso on February 01, 2024, 11:01:04 AM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
I'e been pretending for over 25 years now!
Post by: pablo_picasso on February 01, 2024, 01:01:28 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
This...
There's no need for them to show their workings out though. It's dull enough when someone who knows what they're talking about goes into it without armchair auditors 'having a go at it'.
Just fucking ignore it then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on February 01, 2024, 01:11:52 PM
(https://www.worldofspectrum.org//pub/sinclair/games-inlays/f/FootballDirector.jpg)
Post by: Risso on February 01, 2024, 01:12:32 PM
There's no need for them to show their workings out though. It's dull enough when someone who knows what they're talking about goes into it without armchair auditors 'having a go at it'.
Armchair auditors would be at least as good as the so called real thing. It's the world's most boring job.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 01, 2024, 01:18:07 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
This...
There's no need for them to show their workings out though. It's dull enough when someone who knows what they're talking about goes into it without armchair auditors 'having a go at it'.
Just fucking ignore it then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
Just fucking ignore me then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on February 01, 2024, 01:19:38 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
This...
There's no need for them to show their workings out though. It's dull enough when someone who knows what they're talking about goes into it without armchair auditors 'having a go at it'.
Just fucking ignore it then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
Just fucking ignore me then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
It's Ignore Inception.
Post by: pablo_picasso on February 01, 2024, 01:25:01 PM
This is really happening, isn't it? As if it wasn't bad enough that people waste months of their lives on a game pretending to be a football manager, people are going to start pretending to be accountants. That's what's going to happen. FFP SOS FFS.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are just trying to gain an understanding of something which seems pretty complex and is impacting massively on clubs.
This...
There's no need for them to show their workings out though. It's dull enough when someone who knows what they're talking about goes into it without armchair auditors 'having a go at it'.
Just fucking ignore it then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
Just fucking ignore me then...
Jesus Christ, how hard is that to understand?
Ignoring something that one finds boring & tedious?
That is great advice.
I wish I had thought of it...
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 01, 2024, 02:54:24 PM
Post by: Dave on February 01, 2024, 03:13:17 PM
I can understand them having to bring in players after promotion because of the loans etc, we were in the same boat when we came up. They didn't have to sign 30 players or however many it was though. And then bring in another dozen this summer. Pretty sure that outside of Johnson in the same period they were bringing in 40 odd players they sold players for about £10m.
For example, they brought in six goalkeepers in the period summer '22 - summer '23. That seems distinctly unnecessary.
Now a seventh, with another £6m spent on former Newcastle keeper Mat Sels from Strasbourg.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 01, 2024, 07:00:36 PM
Post by: Risso on February 02, 2024, 09:43:11 AM
Has anyone confirmed if our new youngsters qualify as youth players so excluded from FFP calculations? Seems an obvious place we can throw cash if that loophole exists. Our Spanish/Portuguese partners hoovering up the European talent.
Mate, it really doesn't work like that. If you spend money on a player, then they go into the FFP calculations, simple as that, regardless of their age.
Post by: Ads on February 02, 2024, 01:21:57 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 02, 2024, 01:26:46 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on February 02, 2024, 01:28:08 PM
Chelsea are fucked. (https://twitter.com/Bassman_93/status/1753346099409019347?t=JwSJ4Qomrf3Au0URjWM_7w&s=19)
Some crazy numbers
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 02, 2024, 01:39:38 PM
Has anyone confirmed if our new youngsters qualify as youth players so excluded from FFP calculations? Seems an obvious place we can throw cash if that loophole exists. Our Spanish/Portuguese partners hoovering up the European talent.
Mate, it really doesn't work like that. If you spend money on a player, then they go into the FFP calculations, simple as that, regardless of their age.
Cheers Risso. I’ve read it in a few places so appreciate the clarification.
Post by: Risso on February 02, 2024, 01:44:19 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 02, 2024, 01:44:22 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 02, 2024, 01:50:02 PM
Chelsea are fucked. (https://twitter.com/Bassman_93/status/1753346099409019347?t=JwSJ4Qomrf3Au0URjWM_7w&s=19)
Lukaku, £19.5m with 2 years left. :)
I'd forgotten he was still their player.
Post by: Risso on February 02, 2024, 01:53:08 PM
What’s happened with Everton’s appeal i thought it was happening on Wednesday?
It started this week, and is expected to last a few days. Decision will be out later this month.
Post by: pablo_picasso on February 02, 2024, 01:57:52 PM
What’s happened with Everton’s appeal i thought it was happening on Wednesday?
I think it started Weds, but should finish today.
The Liverpool Echo mentioned that it should be publicly announced mid February...
Post by: VILLA MOLE on February 02, 2024, 02:13:00 PM
Chelsea are fucked. (https://twitter.com/Bassman_93/status/1753346099409019347?t=JwSJ4Qomrf3Au0URjWM_7w&s=19)
Lukaku, £19.5m with 2 years left. :)
I'd forgotten he was still their player.
So they are saying on Sky they need to raise £100 million by end of June ?
Post by: Dogtanian on February 02, 2024, 02:13:53 PM
We are 7th (strangely enough) with £148.3m. I think we got £122m the previous season.
https://theathletic.com/5246560/2024/02/02/premier-league-payments-merit-man-city/ (https://theathletic.com/5246560/2024/02/02/premier-league-payments-merit-man-city/)
Post by: PeterWithesShin on February 02, 2024, 02:18:34 PM
July 1st is called Bobby Bonilla Day by Mets fans.
Bobby also gets $500k a year from the Orioles, those payments started in 2004 and are for 25 years.
Post by: Risso on February 02, 2024, 02:19:22 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 02, 2024, 09:58:58 PM
Post by: Smithy on February 03, 2024, 12:31:07 AM
Has anyone confirmed if our new youngsters qualify as youth players so excluded from FFP calculations? Seems an obvious place we can throw cash if that loophole exists. Our Spanish/Portuguese partners hoovering up the European talent.
Mate, it really doesn't work like that. If you spend money on a player, then they go into the FFP calculations, simple as that, regardless of their age.
Cheers Risso. I’ve read it in a few places so appreciate the clarification.
I think people have misinterpreted "investing in youth programmes and facilities being outside FFP calculations" as meaning you can buy youth players outside FFP calculations. It does not, as Risso said. It just means you can invest heavily in your academy - facilities and coaching - and those costs don't have to be included in your FFP calculation.
So if you have rich owners, who are looking for something within the club where they can spend money easily, youth development is the perfect place. Round up the best local talent from a young age, give them the very best coaching and facilities you possibly can, and then if they don't make the first team, flip them for a profit. Sound familiar?
Post by: Stu on February 18, 2024, 07:14:58 PM
Edit - see here: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/028a-1a2f899177e2-b3619612eaa4-1000/uefaeuropeanclubfinanceinvestmentlandscape_150224.pdf
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 18, 2024, 07:16:12 PM
Apparently Villa have reported a €138m loss before tax for 2023, one of the biggest ever losses recorded, with player wages taking up 70% of turnover. Bit of a critical situation which makes CL qualification this season all the more important.
Where was that reported? I don’t see how that can be true.
Post by: Stu on February 18, 2024, 07:18:29 PM
Apparently Villa have reported a €138m loss before tax for 2023, one of the biggest ever losses recorded, with player wages taking up 70% of turnover. Bit of a critical situation which makes CL qualification this season all the more important.
Where was that reported? I don’t see how that can be true.
Forgot to add the source: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/028a-1a2f899177e2-b3619612eaa4-1000/uefaeuropeanclubfinanceinvestmentlandscape_150224.pdf
Post by: Ads on February 18, 2024, 07:20:40 PM
How is it possible to lose nearly €90m Euros more than you spent on transfers?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 18, 2024, 07:34:13 PM
Says we've provided actual data, but our accounts aren't out for 2023?
How is it possible to lose nearly €90m Euros more than you spent on transfers?
It’s possible (that we’ve provided data I mean). The accounts will be out in a fortnight, and they’re for the period ending May 31st last year.
I’ve got a feeling some of those losses will be FFP deductible. Fingers crossed anyway.
Post by: Ads on February 18, 2024, 07:40:14 PM
Says we've provided actual data, but our accounts aren't out for 2023?
How is it possible to lose nearly €90m Euros more than you spent on transfers?
It’s possible (that we’ve provided data I mean). The accounts will be out in a fortnight, and they’re for the period ending May 31st last year.
Yeah fair enough, but I just don't see how Coutinho, Dinge, Carlos, Dendonker and Kamara (Moreno and Duran, forgot them pair) adds on wages so significantly that we lose £117m?
Post by: VillaTim on February 18, 2024, 07:44:34 PM
Post by: paul_e on February 18, 2024, 07:45:01 PM
Says we've provided actual data, but our accounts aren't out for 2023?
How is it possible to lose nearly €90m Euros more than you spent on transfers?
It’s possible (that we’ve provided data I mean). The accounts will be out in a fortnight, and they’re for the period ending May 31st last year.
Yeah fair enough, but I just don't see how Coutinho, Dinge, Carlos, Dendonker and Kamara adds on wages so significantly that we lose £117m?
All the work on upgrading BMH and the academy would be my guess. I think most of that will be under those accounts won't it?
Post by: SoccerHQ on February 18, 2024, 07:47:15 PM
Kamara on a free and courted by some major clubs would be over 100k + aswell.
I don't think it will be quite as doomsday as made out above but it's clear we need to find as much lucrative revenue streams as possible in the near future so CL is the obvious short term move given the North Stand rebuild has been scrapped.
And probably means we'll have to make a Grealish type sale in summer 2025 aswell.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on February 18, 2024, 07:50:18 PM
Post by: Villan82 on February 18, 2024, 07:58:12 PM
Nothing done in the past fe months makes sense. We clearly aren't bringing in enough revenue but we have shelved the new development which means this is our lot for the foreseeable.
I have tried to understand what's going on (given the lack of information coming from the club) and I have been a bit stumped.
Any financial whiz kids want to jump in?
Post by: SoccerHQ on February 18, 2024, 08:09:43 PM
I think we’ll be selling someone this summer to be honest. Which is mad given we’ve not spent outrageously, have made progression, which should improve revenue and it’s still not enough.
In an ideal world Digne, Donk, Coutinho all are off the books by July 1st.
I would say one thing though...if it was FFP Armageddon coming our way then it feels a bit premature to give Bailey a new deal as he's someone who would be in the Diaby price bracket based on his experience and productivity over the last year.
My hunch all along is that Ramsey will be sacrificed at some point given he's home grown which seems the easy sell to met FFP requirements with the rules drawn up.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on February 18, 2024, 08:13:54 PM
It’s just a sad state of affairs.
Post by: VillaTim on February 18, 2024, 08:21:25 PM
the players are the assets so to get them under contract protects the investment . If we were to sell Bailey in the sunmmer his value is higher as an example due to the new contract.I think we’ll be selling someone this summer to be honest. Which is mad given we’ve not spent outrageously, have made progression, which should improve revenue and it’s still not enough.
In an ideal world Digne, Donk, Coutinho all are off the books by July 1st.
I would say one thing though...if it was FFP Armageddon coming our way then it feels a bit premature to give Bailey a new deal as he's someone who would be in the Diaby price bracket based on his experience and productivity over the last year.
My hunch all along is that Ramsey will be sacrificed at some point given he's home grown which seems the easy sell to met FFP requirements with the rules drawn up.
Post by: Beard82 on February 18, 2024, 08:22:33 PM
In 2022 they presented a bold new vision that encompassed the new North Stand and the Villa Live Development. I am fairly certain the spending on this infrastructure would not impact on us for FFP but long term would help us bring in more revenue on match day and outside match day. Correct me if I am wrong?I think this is correct. I think 5 things to add to that
Nothing done in the past fe months makes sense. We clearly aren't bringing in enough revenue but we have shelved the new development which means this is our lot for the foreseeable.
I have tried to understand what's going on (given the lack of information coming from the club) and I have been a bit stumped.
Any financial whiz kids want to jump in?
1) I think we will see 1 star asset go, particularly if we don't get champions league
2) The previous plan was the result of the old CEOs way of addressing the issue. Heck obviously has different ideas - so far most of them shit
3) The new partners in V Sports must have something to do with all this. The lack of activity is most likely where the club is working on a new strategy
4) FFP will be revamped as its not fit for purpose and sooner or later all of the "other 14" will get stung by it. We need to be championing a better FFP. Especially seeming we have virtually no debt
5) The multi-club strategy seems to be a big idea for us - but that is a long term thing - but should pay dividends
And.. We need to sort out match day catering and drinks. I sit in the DE and cant get a drink there - and I think a lot of it is because it is managed awfully
Post by: N'ZMAV on February 18, 2024, 08:23:55 PM
And probably means we'll have to make a Grealish type sale in summer 2025 aswell.not too many obvious andidates for another £100mil.
Post by: VillaTim on February 18, 2024, 08:37:46 PM
not in the current climate those days are overAnd probably means we'll have to make a Grealish type sale in summer 2025 aswell.not too many obvious andidates for another £100mil.
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 18, 2024, 08:40:07 PM
In 2022 they presented a bold new vision that encompassed the new North Stand and the Villa Live Development. I am fairly certain the spending on this infrastructure would not impact on us for FFP but long term would help us bring in more revenue on match day and outside match day. Correct me if I am wrong?I think this is correct. I think 5 things to add to that
Nothing done in the past fe months makes sense. We clearly aren't bringing in enough revenue but we have shelved the new development which means this is our lot for the foreseeable.
I have tried to understand what's going on (given the lack of information coming from the club) and I have been a bit stumped.
Any financial whiz kids want to jump in?
1) I think we will see 1 star asset go, particularly if we don't get champions league
2) The previous plan was the result of the old CEOs way of addressing the issue. Heck obviously has different ideas - so far most of them shit
3) The new partners in V Sports must have something to do with all this. The lack of activity is most likely where the club is working on a new strategy
4) FFP will be revamped as its not fit for purpose and sooner or later all of the "other 14" will get stung by it. We need to be championing a better FFP. Especially seeming we have virtually no debt
5) The multi-club strategy seems to be a big idea for us - but that is a long term thing - but should pay dividends
And.. We need to sort out match day catering and drinks. I sit in the DE and cant get a drink there - and I think a lot of it is because it is managed awfully
On point 4 this is UEFA FFP as opposed to Premier League isn’t it?
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 18, 2024, 08:42:58 PM
not in the current climate those days are overAnd probably means we'll have to make a Grealish type sale in summer 2025 aswell.not too many obvious andidates for another £100mil.
Generally yes but a handful of clubs (city/Man U/arse/liverpool/sours) have the income to afford an 80/90m signing each season. Monchi needs to earn his crust by finding replacement for players we don’t want to sell. Without a windfall like this we will always be hamstrung by our lower income.
Post by: Villan82 on February 18, 2024, 08:44:51 PM
After the takeover and up to the end of last season I felt I knew what the club was doing and what the next phase is. Since the changes in personnel on the non footballing side, and especially since Heck's December comments on the club social media, I feel I don't really know what we are doing and it is the first time since the takeover that I feel a little bit alienated.
If they are banking on Heck they would be wise to talk to him about how to communicate with fans on this side of the Atlantic.
Post by: Beard82 on February 18, 2024, 08:45:02 PM
yeah - thats a good pointIn 2022 they presented a bold new vision that encompassed the new North Stand and the Villa Live Development. I am fairly certain the spending on this infrastructure would not impact on us for FFP but long term would help us bring in more revenue on match day and outside match day. Correct me if I am wrong?I think this is correct. I think 5 things to add to that
Nothing done in the past fe months makes sense. We clearly aren't bringing in enough revenue but we have shelved the new development which means this is our lot for the foreseeable.
I have tried to understand what's going on (given the lack of information coming from the club) and I have been a bit stumped.
Any financial whiz kids want to jump in?
1) I think we will see 1 star asset go, particularly if we don't get champions league
2) The previous plan was the result of the old CEOs way of addressing the issue. Heck obviously has different ideas - so far most of them shit
3) The new partners in V Sports must have something to do with all this. The lack of activity is most likely where the club is working on a new strategy
4) FFP will be revamped as its not fit for purpose and sooner or later all of the "other 14" will get stung by it. We need to be championing a better FFP. Especially seeming we have virtually no debt
5) The multi-club strategy seems to be a big idea for us - but that is a long term thing - but should pay dividends
And.. We need to sort out match day catering and drinks. I sit in the DE and cant get a drink there - and I think a lot of it is because it is managed awfully
On point 4 this is UEFA FFP as opposed to Premier League isn’t it?
Post by: Dogtanian on February 18, 2024, 09:01:55 PM
Apparently Villa have reported a €138m loss before tax for 2023, one of the biggest ever losses recorded, with player wages taking up 70% of turnover. Bit of a critical situation which makes CL qualification this season all the more important.
Where was that reported? I don’t see how that can be true.
Forgot to add the source: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/028a-1a2f899177e2-b3619612eaa4-1000/uefaeuropeanclubfinanceinvestmentlandscape_150224.pdf
Page 37 also says the operational loss is only EUR39m though. If the problem was player wages then I’d expect that loss to be higher.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 18, 2024, 09:06:32 PM
Apparently Villa have reported a €138m loss before tax for 2023, one of the biggest ever losses recorded, with player wages taking up 70% of turnover. Bit of a critical situation which makes CL qualification this season all the more important.
Where was that reported? I don’t see how that can be true.
Forgot to add the source: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/028a-1a2f899177e2-b3619612eaa4-1000/uefaeuropeanclubfinanceinvestmentlandscape_150224.pdf
Page 37 also says the operational loss is only £39m though. If the problem was player wages then I’d expect that loss to be higher.
Pounds or euros?
Post by: Dogtanian on February 18, 2024, 09:13:31 PM
Apparently Villa have reported a €138m loss before tax for 2023, one of the biggest ever losses recorded, with player wages taking up 70% of turnover. Bit of a critical situation which makes CL qualification this season all the more important.
Where was that reported? I don’t see how that can be true.
Forgot to add the source: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/028a-1a2f899177e2-b3619612eaa4-1000/uefaeuropeanclubfinanceinvestmentlandscape_150224.pdf
Page 37 also says the operational loss is only £39m though. If the problem was player wages then I’d expect that loss to be higher.
Pounds or euros?
Yes, Euros it is!
Post by: Ads on February 18, 2024, 09:14:56 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on February 18, 2024, 09:49:08 PM
Post by: Beard82 on February 18, 2024, 09:56:49 PM
How the hell would we lose that much money - we didn't really go wild?
Post by: Ads on February 18, 2024, 10:03:28 PM
How the hell would we lose that much money - we didn't really go wild?
Boats and hoes! Boats and hoes!
Post by: ldavfc4eva on February 18, 2024, 10:16:53 PM
Or am I mis-reading it?
Post by: VillaTim on February 18, 2024, 10:21:37 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on February 18, 2024, 11:18:20 PM
There may be some big write downs in that number.
Do you know how Spurs did?
Post by: aj2k77 on February 19, 2024, 12:29:36 AM
There may be some big write downs in that number.
Do you know how Spurs did?
Lost loads but they have injuries.
Post by: BC54 VFC on February 19, 2024, 01:40:38 AM
Post by: ROBBO on February 19, 2024, 02:30:51 AM
Post by: sid1964 on February 19, 2024, 06:01:33 AM
If the figure is correct are we going to get a points deduction next season or even this season?
Post by: Dogtanian on February 19, 2024, 06:18:09 AM
So the loss of £138 million is all Chris Hecks fault?
If the figure is correct are we going to get a points deduction next season or even this season?
No, because it would have been announced by now as the PL have had our figures since December.
Next year’s will depend on if we have screwed up in this season’s accounts, which won’t end until May.
Post by: Dave on February 19, 2024, 07:51:41 AM
Post by: Gareth on February 19, 2024, 08:07:10 AM
If these rumours are even close to being true, it would make no sense us spending £12m or so on Nedeljkovic and Rogers, neither of which were essential in January.
Exactly this
Post by: Somniloquism on February 19, 2024, 08:47:50 AM
That YOY increase in wages of £52m is some hike!
Not sure if they include Torres, or Diaby but I expect they were not cheap, especially the latter. But we also did lots of new contracts over the last 18
months, plus it might also contain bonuses in players contracts for making Europe.
Post by: Smithy on February 19, 2024, 08:57:57 AM
That YOY increase in wages of £52m is some hike!
Not sure if they include Torres, or Diaby but I expect they were not cheap, especially the latter. But we also did lots of new contracts over the last 18
months, plus it might also contain bonuses in players contracts for making Europe.
Had we even qualified for Europe when these accounts closed?
Post by: Dogtanian on February 19, 2024, 09:02:12 AM
Post by: lovejoy on February 19, 2024, 09:02:24 AM
Post by: Risso on February 19, 2024, 09:02:34 AM
For comparison, in the accounts for the year before (31 May 2022), we made an operating loss (ie before anything to do with player costs) of £14m. We then had amortisation of £83m, making the loss worse, but profit on disposal of players (Grealish mainly) of £97m which offsets it. With a few quid of interest in and out, there was a small profit for the year.
So conceivably, if the operating loss stays broadly similar this year, and we sold no players, then with the amortisation we could be looking at a loss of c. £100m. Add increased amortisation for players bought and an increase in wages, and I guess you could be getting that up over £100m. But if we look at the post balance sheet events note that mentions everything that happens between 31 May 2022 and 28 Feb 2023, then it states that we sold players worth £48m, which I reckon is Targett (£15m) Trez (£4m) Chukwuemeka (£18m), Ings (£12m), El Ghazi (£2m). Most of that would have been profit as all except Ings had been here a while, and Chukwuemeka was a youth player.
The same note says we bought players worth £63m, ie Carlos (£26m), Duran (£15m), Moreno (£12m) Dendocker (£13m). For the sake of argument, if they're all on an average 3 year contract, that's an extra £20m a year amortisation. So a very rough back of a fag packet calculation:
2022 operating loss: (£14m). Add maybe another £10m for 2023, that's (£24m). Take 2022 amortisation of (£83m) deduct say £10m and add amortiastion of new players = (£93m) Add that to the operating loss to give total loss of (£117m). Take off say, £36m for profit on players sold, gives a loss of (£81m). Not great but nowhere near what's being reported. Obviously I have no idea if that guess at an operating loss is correct. If it's way more, then the loss figure being reported could be right, and if it's less then it'll be smaller.
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 19, 2024, 09:45:41 AM
Post by: Drummond on February 19, 2024, 09:47:40 AM
Plus, why on earth would the club be taking risks on it all and getting it all wrong? I just don't see our owners gambling our future.
Post by: Smithy on February 19, 2024, 10:18:32 AM
Well I trust you to be right (on that, don't get carried away 😉) more than some random twitter thing.
Plus, why on earth would the club be taking risks on it all and getting it all wrong? I just don't see our owners gambling our future.
That's my view too. The way the club is run today, it just doesn't strike me as plausible that we would lose SO much money as to put us in FFP peril - certainly not given we actually paid cash money for players in January as well. I could definitely see us getting up close to the limit in a managed way, but being past it by orders of magnitude (as suggested by some of these figures), I just don't see it.
Post by: Drummond on February 19, 2024, 10:22:16 AM
This is why Champions League is so necessary to be able to compete.
(https://i.ibb.co/6HhjNmd/20240219-102002.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6HhjNmd)
Post by: Smithy on February 19, 2024, 10:28:50 AM
UEFA release TV money numbers.
This is why Champions League is so necessary to be able to compete.
(https://i.ibb.co/6HhjNmd/20240219-102002.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6HhjNmd)
Am I reading that correctly? The English teams in the champions league last year received a combined total of €381m in broadcasting revenue? And actual prize money would be on top of that?
And that West Ham got €22m in broadcast revenue from their run to the Europa Conference title? (they were the only English team in the competition, so I assume all 22m went to them?)
Post by: AV82EC on February 19, 2024, 10:31:00 AM
Post by: Villan82 on February 19, 2024, 10:34:37 AM
As a caveat, the problem is that certain clubs have been able to cheat to get themselves into the top echelons - not looking at any two in particular - locking out other club and creating a cartel over the past 20 years or so.
Post by: Smithy on February 19, 2024, 10:39:37 AM
Post by: AV82EC on February 19, 2024, 10:43:19 AM
It will be interesting to see how the club structures it's finances if we DO qualify for the Champions League. I mean, that extra potential £100m would be great, and I'd love to see us invest it in the team, but obviously you can't rely on it definitely being there every year. The key appears to be building a commercial bohemoth off the pitch, so that if you don't qualify in any given year, it's not immediately panic stations.
I suppose it’s a bit chicken and egg though as you can’t get the Commercial behemoth bit without the champions League bit.
Post by: SoccerHQ on February 19, 2024, 10:47:38 AM
If these rumours are even close to being true, it would make no sense us spending £12m or so on Nedeljkovic and Rogers, neither of which were essential in January.
I think it's more they're young and relatively small fees so wouldn't make a huge dent to FFP and obvious aim is they both progress and become first team regulars in next 18 months.
If they do then Cash will be sold eventually and one of the midfielders to balance things out.
I'd say it's more interesting we gave Bailey a new deal when given his productive 2023 he might've been sold in the summer instead.
Think what's certain here is if we finish 6th then one of Luiz or Ramsey will 100% be sold this summer.
Digne will go aswell as that seemed to be the plan last August but was correct to stop in the end with the injury issues Moreno had up to December.
Post by: Smithy on February 19, 2024, 11:18:43 AM
It will be interesting to see how the club structures it's finances if we DO qualify for the Champions League. I mean, that extra potential £100m would be great, and I'd love to see us invest it in the team, but obviously you can't rely on it definitely being there every year. The key appears to be building a commercial bohemoth off the pitch, so that if you don't qualify in any given year, it's not immediately panic stations.
I suppose it’s a bit chicken and egg though as you can’t get the Commercial behemoth bit without the champions League bit.
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. I mean, rather than blowing the anticipated £100m on a couple of new players in the summer (which would be amazing), do we play it a bit more reserved and focus on building a commercial operation to maximise the benefits of any participation in the champions league.
I'm also acutely aware the two are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. But I look at someone like Leicester, who went from a Champions League QF to relegation in just 6 years, after losing a wealthy owner, all because their commercial operation wasn't sufficient to sustain a competitive team.
I look at the premier league in the late 90s, and commercially we weren't far behind the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, and yes, the game has changed massively in the last 25 years, but they're not ahead of us now because of Champions League money or Premier League money - they're ahead of us because they've absolutely maximised the money they make away from the pitch. That's the bit that will determine whether we can stay at the top table for the long term. Because if we can't make a serious dent in their commercial advantage, we'll always be susceptible to losing our best players to them time and again. A new shirt deal and a new main sponsor would be a good step in the right direction.
An extra £100m from the Champions league would be a amazing, but our long-term success relies much more heavily on whether we can find a way to make an extra £100m a year away from the pitch.
The romantic in me doesn't care about the finances, and just wants to see us playing Champions league football at VP under the lights, but the realist in me knows so much else has to happen in the background to make such a thing a regular occurrence. Merely qualifying once doesn't create sufficient momentum on it's own. As Newcastle have proven this season.
Post by: Mister E on February 19, 2024, 11:30:57 AM
P61 of the UEFA report shows the club sales of shirts / kit - we're nowhere near being on the list, I'm guessing (even though Dirty Leeds are, with €34m of shirt sales in 2021-22).It will be interesting to see how the club structures it's finances if we DO qualify for the Champions League. I mean, that extra potential £100m would be great, and I'd love to see us invest it in the team, but obviously you can't rely on it definitely being there every year. The key appears to be building a commercial bohemoth off the pitch, so that if you don't qualify in any given year, it's not immediately panic stations.
I suppose it’s a bit chicken and egg though as you can’t get the Commercial behemoth bit without the champions League bit.
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. I mean, rather than blowing the anticipated £100m on a couple of new players in the summer (which would be amazing), do we play it a bit more reserved and focus on building a commercial operation to maximise the benefits of any participation in the champions league.
I'm also acutely aware the two are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. But I look at someone like Leicester, who went from a Champions League QF to relegation in just 6 years, after losing a wealthy owner, all because their commercial operation wasn't sufficient to sustain a competitive team.
I look at the premier league in the late 90s, and commercially we weren't far behind the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, and yes, the game has changed massively in the last 25 years, but they're not ahead of us now because of Champions League money or Premier League money - they're ahead of us because they've absolutely maximised the money they make away from the pitch. That's the bit that will determine whether we can stay at the top table for the long term. Because if we can't make a serious dent in their commercial advantage, we'll always be susceptible to losing our best players to them time and again. A new shirt deal and a new main sponsor would be a good step in the right direction.
An extra £100m from the Champions league would be a amazing, but our long-term success relies much more heavily on whether we can find a way to make an extra £100m a year away from the pitch.
The romantic in me doesn't care about the finances, and just wants to see us playing Champions league football at VP under the lights, but the realist in me knows so much else has to happen in the background to make such a thing a regular occurrence. Merely qualifying once doesn't create sufficient momentum on it's own. As Newcastle have proven this season.
An earlier graphic showed the revenue from matchday activities and, again, we were nowhere near being competitive.
I see this is a microcosm of our commercial problem: we're just not leveraging the revenue streams, which is why we're struggling on the FFP front.
Post by: rob_bridge on February 19, 2024, 11:31:08 AM
Easier said than done mind. Hard to extend the ground without hitting current day to day revenue. Building a new ground even if we could find a location would cause an awful lot of uproar with the current match day punters.
Post by: Risso on February 19, 2024, 11:34:19 AM
Post by: Villan82 on February 19, 2024, 11:38:40 AM
It comes back to the debate about the stadium. A new North Stand may not put a massive dent in the income gap, but if we don't do it, how do we compete consistently if the plan is to build a new ground, as that's going to mean an 8-10 year wait with a bottom half sized stadium, with severely outdated facilities.
The new stand, and the original villa live, seemed to be about creating a venue that would bring in revenue on a scale we haven't seen before. It seemed like the perfect plan
Post by: aev on February 19, 2024, 11:39:12 AM
It comes back to the debate about the stadium. A new North Stand may not put a massive dent in the income gap, but if we don't do it, how do we compete consistently if the plan is to build a new ground, as that's going to mean an 8-10 year wait with a bottom half sized stadium, with severely outdated facilities.
Absolutely. And what about the role of our new investors?
Post by: Beard82 on February 19, 2024, 11:57:58 AM
We either think that were ok, or that any sanctions will be worth our actions, or we have plans to put it right.
At the end of the day - the club is well run enough not to spend 20m we didn't have to spend in the most recent window if we're already in the mess. Likewise, we have assets that we can sell for big, big money that people will buy we would have shifted one if we had to.
I think part of the strategy is we will see 1 or 2 of them move on this summer, particularly if no CL, but we would have done it by now if it meant we were really in the shit.
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 11:59:55 AM
It comes back to the debate about the stadium. A new North Stand may not put a massive dent in the income gap, but if we don't do it, how do we compete consistently if the plan is to build a new ground, as that's going to mean an 8-10 year wait with a bottom half sized stadium, with severely outdated facilities.Our ground is better than Chelsea's and they did ok
Post by: lovejoy on February 19, 2024, 12:02:40 PM
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 12:05:50 PM
...err how were their finances?they've been loosing bucketloads of late
Post by: BC54 VFC on February 19, 2024, 12:52:11 PM
They won't include either (both signed in July 2023) and the year-end is 31st May, 2023. Even Digne, who was signed in mid-January 2022, will only represent a 7.5 month increased cost when compared to prior-year.That YOY increase in wages of £52m is some hike!
Not sure if they include Torres, or Diaby but I expect they were not cheap, especially the latter. But we also did lots of new contracts over the last 18
months, plus it might also contain bonuses in players contracts for making Europe.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 19, 2024, 12:59:16 PM
...err how were their finances?
they've been loosing bucketloads of late
Time for them to tighten their belt?
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 01:01:25 PM
Doesn't look like it has stopped them in recent years , losses of +£200m and yet they have carried on the spree....err how were their finances?
they've been loosing bucketloads of late
Time for them to tighten their belt?
They haven't really invested in the ground (other than corporate) and i know RA was trying hard to move (Battersea etc) but that never happened so they are stuck at the speedway track.
Post by: Somniloquism on February 19, 2024, 01:03:17 PM
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 01:07:27 PM
Post by: rob_bridge on February 19, 2024, 01:28:44 PM
Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
Post by: Somniloquism on February 19, 2024, 01:36:09 PM
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 01:53:30 PM
At the time of signing there was plenty of speculation of an above normal signing on fee being paid .Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
Post by: Somniloquism on February 19, 2024, 02:15:13 PM
Post by: Smirker on February 19, 2024, 02:23:13 PM
...err how were their finances?
they've been loosing bucketloads of late
Time for them to tighten their belt?
8)
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 19, 2024, 02:26:32 PM
In Commercial Revenue terms?It comes back to the debate about the stadium. A new North Stand may not put a massive dent in the income gap, but if we don't do it, how do we compete consistently if the plan is to build a new ground, as that's going to mean an 8-10 year wait with a bottom half sized stadium, with severely outdated facilities.Our ground is better than Chelsea's and they did ok
Also London, so we have to somehow overcome the geography.
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 02:41:53 PM
As in our ground is in a better state of repair. And they're about the same size.In Commercial Revenue terms?It comes back to the debate about the stadium. A new North Stand may not put a massive dent in the income gap, but if we don't do it, how do we compete consistently if the plan is to build a new ground, as that's going to mean an 8-10 year wait with a bottom half sized stadium, with severely outdated facilities.Our ground is better than Chelsea's and they did ok
Also London, so we have to somehow overcome the geography.
Post by: GordonCowansisthegreatest on February 19, 2024, 03:27:03 PM
I did a quick google search, the only reports back on the significant signing on fee was someone called Sillhillvilla on Vital Football. Whoever they were they just wouldn't let it go and just kept on mentioning it. Not sure if they post on here but the fact they used to start a reply in lowercase and then rarely put a punctuation mark at the end just marks them out as extremely stupid. Especially when most people on there kept on pointing out that the fee discussions had no confirmations, but the poster just kept on going on and on as if it was a fact.Who does that sound like?
Post by: Ads on February 19, 2024, 06:05:13 PM
I did a quick google search, the only reports back on the significant signing on fee was someone called Sillhillvilla on Vital Football. Whoever they were they just wouldn't let it go and just kept on mentioning it. Not sure if they post on here but the fact they used to start a reply in lowercase and then rarely put a punctuation mark at the end just marks them out as extremely stupid. Especially when most people on there kept on pointing out that the fee discussions had no confirmations, but the poster just kept on going on and on as if it was a fact.
That was the other user name of the colossal idiot Coopers Injury. Glad they don't post on here anymore...
Post by: aj2k77 on February 19, 2024, 06:13:14 PM
That YOY increase in wages of £52m is some hike!
Brought in
Coutinho
Carlos
Olsen
Kamara
Dendoncker
Moreno (5 months)
Duran (5 months)
Sold
Targett
Hourihane
Chukwumeka
El Ghazi
Trezeguet
Guilbert (5 months)
Ings (5 months)
New contracts
Mings
Luiz
Cant see how we paid a million pounds a week more in wages there.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 19, 2024, 06:15:42 PM
Hopefully those figures are wide of the mark as they are fairly disastrous looking on an Enron like scale
I'm not an Arthur Andersen alumnus, but I'd still be interested in hearing why you think Villa's financial situation might be comparable to the Enron scandal.
Post by: rob_bridge on February 19, 2024, 07:26:22 PM
At the time of signing there was plenty of speculation of an above normal signing on fee being paid .Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
So None.
Thanks for this.
You really are Barry Bullshit.
There was a guy on here just like you until recently.
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 07:36:33 PM
get back under your bridgeAt the time of signing there was plenty of speculation of an above normal signing on fee being paid .Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
So None.
Thanks for this.
You really are Barry Bullshit.
There was a guy on here just like you until recently.
Post by: rob_bridge on February 19, 2024, 07:54:12 PM
get back under your bridgeAt the time of signing there was plenty of speculation of an above normal signing on fee being paid .Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
So None.
Thanks for this.
You really are Barry Bullshit.
There was a guy on here just like you until recently.
Ooh Touched a Nerve there. Still Zero Evidence forthcoming. Zero.
Does anyone remember Sillhillvilla - I’d wager this fella is he? Had an almost exact response once from him.
Anyone else?
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 08:02:12 PM
Muted.get back under your bridgeAt the time of signing there was plenty of speculation of an above normal signing on fee being paid .Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
So None.
Thanks for this.
You really are Barry Bullshit.
There was a guy on here just like you until recently.
Ooh Touched a Nerve there. Still Zero Evidence forthcoming. Zero.
Does anyone remember Sillhillvilla - I’d wager this fella is he? Had an almost exact response once from him.
Anyone else?
Post by: rob_bridge on February 19, 2024, 08:08:10 PM
For now :)Muted.get back under your bridgeAt the time of signing there was plenty of speculation of an above normal signing on fee being paid .Kamara and agent landed a significant sign on fee if the stories are true.
Which stories?
So None.
Thanks for this.
You really are Barry Bullshit.
There was a guy on here just like you until recently.
Ooh Touched a Nerve there. Still Zero Evidence forthcoming. Zero.
Does anyone remember Sillhillvilla - I’d wager this fella is he? Had an almost exact response once from him.
Anyone else?
Are you denying it?
Or coincidentally another zero evidence merchant?
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 19, 2024, 08:12:01 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 19, 2024, 09:27:27 PM
On page 29 it says our wage to revenue ratio is 92% but on page 31 it says 71%.
Could be total wages v playing wages.
Post by: BC54 VFC on February 19, 2024, 09:31:25 PM
Good analysis; thank you. Yes, it does seem strange.That YOY increase in wages of £52m is some hike!
Brought in
Coutinho
Carlos
Olsen
Kamara
Dendoncker
Moreno (5 months)
Duran (5 months)
Sold
Targett
Hourihane
Chukwumeka
El Ghazi
Trezeguet
Guilbert (5 months)
Ings (5 months)
New contracts
Mings
Luiz
Cant see how we paid a million pounds a week more in wages there.
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 09:35:00 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on February 19, 2024, 09:39:35 PM
On page 29 it says our wage to revenue ratio is 92% but on page 31 it says 71%.
Could be total wages v playing wages.
Doesn't add up.
Turnover in 22/23 was £215 according to Deloitte. At 92% wages to turnover that would be £198m and at 71% it would be £153m. Our last reported wage bill in accounts was 21/22 and was at £137m. There wouldn't be a jump of £61m in the space of a year. I think they've got their figures wrong. Also there's no way we are paying non playing staff £45m per year.
Post by: aj2k77 on February 19, 2024, 09:41:32 PM
Coutinho Carlos Kamara will all be on big salaries .
I'd hazard a guess of a combined £500k per week. Nowhere near the million and then you can deduct the salaries of the players we sold. There's no way the wage bill jumped nearly 50% in a year.
Post by: VillaTim on February 19, 2024, 09:44:15 PM
Something looks amiss. I guess we'll find out soon enough when the accounts are officially published.Coutinho Carlos Kamara will all be on big salaries .
I'd hazard a guess of a combined £500k per week. Nowhere near the million and then you can deduct the salaries of the players we sold. There's no way the wage bill jumped nearly 50% in a year.
Post by: Smirker on February 19, 2024, 10:00:37 PM
In a word, are we fucked?
Does it look bad or are we still unsure?
Post by: Somniloquism on February 19, 2024, 11:01:55 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 20, 2024, 09:48:27 AM
If we were screwed by them, we would have been charged the same as Everton and Forest were. However it might explain why the STs are shooting up, we are adding the LT and View things, and they have canned the stand rebuild but don't have anything else to comment on what else.The stand rebuild was not an FFP issue.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 20, 2024, 09:51:53 AM
I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?Impossible to say until the accounts are released.
In a word, are we fucked?
Does it look bad or are we still unsure?
Post by: Somniloquism on February 20, 2024, 09:57:31 AM
If we were screwed by them, we would have been charged the same as Everton and Forest were. However it might explain why the STs are shooting up, we are adding the LT and View things, and they have canned the stand rebuild but don't have anything else to comment on what else.The stand rebuild was not an FFP issue.
My words are the losses aren't on the playing side to cause FFP issues due to us not being charged the same time as Everton and Forest, however if we are suffering from unexpected heavier losses, that might be the reason to can all the stand and area development we had set out previously.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 20, 2024, 09:58:11 AM
I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?Impossible to say until the accounts are released.
In a word, are we fucked?
Does it look bad or are we still unsure?
I very much doubt it.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 20, 2024, 10:51:22 AM
Capital is not the problem though, hence the new investors.If we were screwed by them, we would have been charged the same as Everton and Forest were. However it might explain why the STs are shooting up, we are adding the LT and View things, and they have canned the stand rebuild but don't have anything else to comment on what else.The stand rebuild was not an FFP issue.
My words are the losses aren't on the playing side to cause FFP issues due to us not being charged the same time as Everton and Forest, however if we are suffering from unexpected heavier losses, that might be the reason to can all the stand and area development we had set out previously.
I do not see how these are related, part of the profitability problem is because of a lack of investment/ development of infrastructure.
Post by: Villan82 on February 20, 2024, 11:01:32 AM
It would be nice to have some of the dots connected because it simply makes no sense
Post by: caster troy on February 20, 2024, 02:30:33 PM
Post by: Risso on February 20, 2024, 02:37:41 PM
If we did the North Stand rebuild that would be a sizeable hit in matchday revenue for two years, is that the FFP issue? It seems like there should be a way to consider temporary capacity reductions in the FFP calculations, but I guess common sense is too much to ask for.
My understanding is that exceptional items like a reduction in crowd capacity and therefore income as a result of building a new stand are allowable and can be excluded from FFP calculations. To illustrate this, say we had to do a ground share with the Dingles for two years while we built a new VP. If they said "Yow can use our stadium but yam not getting any monoi" then we'd have no income and would essentially fall foul of FFP by a million miles.
Post by: Rigadon on February 20, 2024, 02:40:01 PM
If we did the North Stand rebuild that would be a sizeable hit in matchday revenue for two years, is that the FFP issue? It seems like there should be a way to consider temporary capacity reductions in the FFP calculations, but I guess common sense is too much to ask for.
An interesting theory. General speaking, there does seem to be a lot of shit flying into the fan with regards to the business of AVFC. What’s that all about?
Post by: caster troy on February 20, 2024, 04:05:29 PM
If we did the North Stand rebuild that would be a sizeable hit in matchday revenue for two years, is that the FFP issue? It seems like there should be a way to consider temporary capacity reductions in the FFP calculations, but I guess common sense is too much to ask for.
My understanding is that exceptional items like a reduction in crowd capacity and therefore income as a result of building a new stand are allowable and can be excluded from FFP calculations. To illustrate this, say we had to do a ground share with the Dingles for two years while we built a new VP. If they said "Yow can use our stadium but yam not getting any monoi" then we'd have no income and would essentially fall foul of FFP by a million miles.
Interesting thanks. In which case if we are struggling with FFP you'd think the priority would be to replace the stand asap to increase revenue in the longer term.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on February 20, 2024, 05:16:41 PM
If we did the North Stand rebuild that would be a sizeable hit in matchday revenue for two years, is that the FFP issue? It seems like there should be a way to consider temporary capacity reductions in the FFP calculations, but I guess common sense is too much to ask for.
My understanding is that exceptional items like a reduction in crowd capacity and therefore income as a result of building a new stand are allowable and can be excluded from FFP calculations. To illustrate this, say we had to do a ground share with the Dingles for two years while we built a new VP. If they said "Yow can use our stadium but yam not getting any monoi" then we'd have no income and would essentially fall foul of FFP by a million miles.
Also, the cost of providing PPE for 28,000 people 19 times a year would be a massive hit on our numbers.
You'd at least want our fans triple masked for every visit there, plus there'd be the required post-game testing for them, too - covid, ebola, dengue fever and so on.
Post by: Villan82 on February 20, 2024, 05:33:44 PM
If we did the North Stand rebuild that would be a sizeable hit in matchday revenue for two years, is that the FFP issue? It seems like there should be a way to consider temporary capacity reductions in the FFP calculations, but I guess common sense is too much to ask for.
My understanding is that exceptional items like a reduction in crowd capacity and therefore income as a result of building a new stand are allowable and can be excluded from FFP calculations. To illustrate this, say we had to do a ground share with the Dingles for two years while we built a new VP. If they said "Yow can use our stadium but yam not getting any monoi" then we'd have no income and would essentially fall foul of FFP by a million miles.
Interesting thanks. In which case if we are struggling with FFP you'd think the priority would be to replace the stand asap to increase revenue in the longer term.
Exactly this. The plan was there, the renders were impressive and extensively publicised. Why are we not doing it now? The 'reasons' given sinply don't stack up.
Post by: Smirker on February 20, 2024, 06:17:11 PM
I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?Impossible to say until the accounts are released.
In a word, are we fucked?
Does it look bad or are we still unsure?
OK thank you mate.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 20, 2024, 06:23:12 PM
AS Percy said above, I also think that it is very unlikely that we have a problem.I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?Impossible to say until the accounts are released.
In a word, are we fucked?
Does it look bad or are we still unsure?
OK thank you mate.
Post by: OCD on February 21, 2024, 10:41:05 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 21, 2024, 11:54:45 AM
If we had FFP concerns, I don't think we would have spent £8m on Rogers.
Or an 18 year old Serbian right back.
Post by: jwarry on February 25, 2024, 04:35:59 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 25, 2024, 07:27:22 AM
https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1761033543533113643?s=46&t=bVpftFYUKG9FXkQ-mcgjPwWhich probably means we will lose a player that none of us wants to lose.
Post by: Dogtanian on February 25, 2024, 07:32:21 AM
And with selling, it’s not just about FFP. There may be a player who wants to go and we have to get what we can for him. Emery might want reinforcements that he is prepared to lose another player to fund…
All I know is that we have a fantastic manager to cope with losing a player, and it isn’t going to all fall apart because one player leaves.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 25, 2024, 07:41:29 AM
Isn’t he just saying that we will do what we have to for compliance? Like every other club should do.There are a few players with huge FFP value,
And with selling, it’s not just about FFP. There may be a player who wants to go and we have to get what we can for him. Emery might want reinforcements that he is prepared to lose another player to fund…
All I know is that we have a fantastic manager to cope with losing a player, and it isn’t going to all fall apart because one player leaves.
SJM, Luiz, Ramsey, Watkins, Bailey and Martinez.
I just hope none of these has to be sacrificed but the comment by Emery seems to be preparing us for that.
Post by: Dogtanian on February 25, 2024, 07:48:57 AM
And Unai said “Go for it, mucka.”
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 25, 2024, 10:45:31 AM
I’m pretty sure no one sat down with Emery last month and said “We can sign a teenage right back for next season, an unproven forward we think has potential and will play a minor role this season, as well as a young backup keeper that’s never played in the UK before, but it means we have to sell Watkins or Luiz in the summer. Shall we?”In FFP terms that expenditure is negligible.
And Unai said “Go for it, mucka.”
Post by: VillaTim on February 25, 2024, 10:51:31 AM
I’m pretty sure no one sat down with Emery last month and said “We can sign a teenage right back for next season, an unproven forward we think has potential and will play a minor role this season, as well as a young backup keeper that’s never played in the UK before, but it means we have to sell Watkins or Luiz in the summer. Shall we?”or maybe they are planning ahead as they have a good idea who is leaving in the summer already.
And Unai said “Go for it, mucka.”
Post by: sid1964 on February 27, 2024, 09:38:35 AM
He also stated that Villa's wage bill this season is half of the amount that each of the supposed "big 6" are paying.
Post by: Beard82 on February 27, 2024, 09:55:37 AM
Post by: AV82EC on February 27, 2024, 10:04:08 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on February 27, 2024, 10:22:30 AM
Just seen a couple of clips on YOUTUBE of Purslow appearing on Talk Sport - talks about FFP and makes some very interesting points .
He also stated that Villa's wage bill this season is half of the amount that each of the supposed "big 6" are paying.
Ratcliffe was talking about changing the wage structure at Manure the other day. Citeh players are apparently on loads of bonuses to knock them up to 350k a week with all their wins last season (they earned £300million as a club with the wins).
Manure start at £300k a week average and was £515k a week for Ronaldo.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 27, 2024, 03:58:32 PM
https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1761033543533113643?s=46&t=bVpftFYUKG9FXkQ-mcgjPwWhich probably means we will lose a player that none of us wants to lose.
Could mean any number of things. Maybe we sell Lucas Digne if Unai is happy with Sousa as Moreno’s back up, Rogers replacing Zaniolo in the squad, Langlet going back or joining on a permanent deal and selling Carlos, Duran & Chambers leaving etc. All these scenarios leave us with our best players (apart from Digne leaving). There are many ways to skin a cat, we just don’t know.
Post by: LeeB on February 27, 2024, 04:03:27 PM
Just seen a couple of clips on YOUTUBE of Purslow appearing on Talk Sport - talks about FFP and makes some very interesting points .
He also stated that Villa's wage bill this season is half of the amount that each of the supposed "big 6" are paying.
Ratcliffe was talking about changing the wage structure at Manure the other day. Citeh players are apparently on loads of bonuses to knock them up to 350k a week with all their wins last season (they earned £300million as a club with the wins).
Manure start at £300k a week average and was £515k a week for Ronaldo.
Easier said than done isn't it? Offloading the current squad on those contracts is difficult given they're unlikely to get it elsewhere, then you've got FFP restricting the market and the fact most of those players have stunk the place out.
Post by: OCD on February 27, 2024, 04:08:53 PM
Dendoncker and Duran to go. £4m incoming for Sanson. Those 4 could bring in up to £50m.
Post by: Monty on February 27, 2024, 04:09:51 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on February 27, 2024, 04:10:51 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on February 27, 2024, 04:14:53 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 27, 2024, 04:30:35 PM
Don't we still "own" Coutinho as well?
Yes. It would be a big boost if somebody took him off our hands/wage bill.
One thing we do know is that Everton and Forest are being done for last years accounts, so we’re fine up to then. This year we’ve got our highest ever gate receipts plus UECL prize money, next year the Adidas deal. Maybe Heck being bullish about signing other clubs’ best players wasn’t bullshit (for a change).
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 27, 2024, 04:38:31 PM
Post by: Ian. on February 27, 2024, 04:48:59 PM
I think Luiz will go.That would be gutting, he's been so consistent since the arrival of Emery and under Smith he has been one of my favourite players. I always thought he was underrated for the work he did and the ease in the way he plays.
He would add quality to any midfield in any team.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 27, 2024, 04:52:50 PM
I think Luiz will go.That would be gutting, he's been so consistent since the arrival of Emery and under Smith he has been one of my favourite players. I always thought he was underrated for the work he did and the ease in the way he plays.
He would add quality to any midfield in any team.
I think other clubs have noticed.
Post by: Villan For Life on February 27, 2024, 05:02:00 PM
I think Luiz will go.That would be gutting, he's been so consistent since the arrival of Emery and under Smith he has been one of my favourite players. I always thought he was underrated for the work he did and the ease in the way he plays.
He would add quality to any midfield in any team.
I think other clubs have noticed.
Yes I think we will have to sell one of our better players for a premium fee in the summer. It will be disappointing but if it allows us to strengthen in other areas and stay within the PSR then it should have long-term benefits.
I hate that we even have to consider this as it’s being forced on us but the long term viability of the club comes first.
Post by: eamonn on February 27, 2024, 05:21:01 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on February 27, 2024, 05:22:44 PM
Can't we just sell Diaby to the Saudis?
Or Chris Heck?
They hate cocksuckers there, too, so they should get on like a house ablaze.
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 05:24:55 PM
Can't we just sell Diaby to the Saudis?that would be great business if we can get the £51m back
Post by: Ian. on February 27, 2024, 05:25:59 PM
Can't we just sell Diaby to the Saudis?
I wonder (hope), based on his early season form when his goals and assists were very good, he may do a Bailey and be brilliant next season. So the Saudi’s can do one.
Post by: TelfordVilla on February 27, 2024, 05:26:26 PM
Post by: Ian. on February 27, 2024, 05:28:42 PM
They have unfortunately. I still just hope he wants to hang around and we can flog someone else. Maybe we’ll find some cash down the sofa.I think Luiz will go.That would be gutting, he's been so consistent since the arrival of Emery and under Smith he has been one of my favourite players. I always thought he was underrated for the work he did and the ease in the way he plays.
He would add quality to any midfield in any team.
I think other clubs have noticed.
FFP is a bit ridiculous. We finally get owners with deep pockets and what seems like ambition and we’re still having to watch our pennies.
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 27, 2024, 05:52:12 PM
Much as it pains me to say it, I think big emi will go. The drop-off between the worlds number 1 and any reserve is too big. £100m for Emi and replace him with at least 2 very good keepers would improve our squad and solve ffp in one go.
No one is paying £100m for Emi, even if we value him at that level.
Post by: TelfordVilla on February 27, 2024, 06:03:03 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 27, 2024, 06:04:02 PM
No one is paying £100m for Emi, even if we value him at that level.
Good.
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 27, 2024, 06:07:08 PM
No one is paying £100m for Emi, even if we value him at that level.
Good.
I agree, I think the only way we sell Emi is if he’s pushes to leave and hopefully we won’t be in a position where that’s an issue.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 27, 2024, 06:07:12 PM
Really? What should be the price for the worlds number 1 goalkeeper?Whatever someone will pay.
Post by: lovejoy on February 27, 2024, 06:10:29 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 27, 2024, 06:14:18 PM
Really? What should be the price for the worlds number 1 goalkeeper?
I don’t know, but I would be amazed if someone offered £100m for Emi. He’s over 30 and he’s a goalkeeper. I wouldn’t swap him for anyone, but I don’t think the clubs chucking around massive money would have the same view.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 27, 2024, 06:31:57 PM
Post by: N'ZMAV on February 27, 2024, 07:12:43 PM
I think he's got it in him to act up and push for a move.No one is paying £100m for Emi, even if we value him at that level.
Good.
I agree, I think the only way we sell Emi is if he’s pushes to leave and hopefully we won’t be in a position where that’s an issue.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 27, 2024, 07:13:34 PM
I think the transfer market peaked at the time Chelsea ran out of rope.
I agree.
I reckon Man U, Man City, spurs and arsenal with have an extra £100m each season but after that most clubs will be close to the FFP allowance so about £40m deficit each season.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 27, 2024, 07:21:13 PM
I agree, I think the only way we sell Emi is if he’s pushes to leave and hopefully we won’t be in a position where that’s an issue.
I think he's got it in him to act up and push for a move.
Doesn't seem like it to me.
Quote from: Emi
"It's the calmest moment of my entire career; now I'm playing with a free mind. Before, I played under the pressure that if I didn't perform well, I wouldn't play on the weekend.
"I'm enjoying football. I'm a different goalkeeper; I feel like I've achieved what I wanted as a footballer. Now, the best Emi is yet to come.
"I enjoy the warm-up; many feel pressure or are nervous. I feel like a child when he sees the park and runs to get on the slide.
"I look around and see the people; it gives me goosebumps. People ask me to dance, and in that moment, I am free.
“I continue to set goals. I want to play 100 games for the National Team, be the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets in the history of the National Team, play in the Champions League with Aston Villa after 35/40 years.
They are difficult goals but I think I can achieve them, and I am sick with that."
Post by: The Edge on February 27, 2024, 08:00:06 PM
That's class. Gotta love Emi.I agree, I think the only way we sell Emi is if he’s pushes to leave and hopefully we won’t be in a position where that’s an issue.
I think he's got it in him to act up and push for a move.
Doesn't seem like it to me.Quote from: Emi"It's the calmest moment of my entire career; now I'm playing with a free mind. Before, I played under the pressure that if I didn't perform well, I wouldn't play on the weekend.
"I'm enjoying football. I'm a different goalkeeper; I feel like I've achieved what I wanted as a footballer. Now, the best Emi is yet to come.
"I enjoy the warm-up; many feel pressure or are nervous. I feel like a child when he sees the park and runs to get on the slide.
"I look around and see the people; it gives me goosebumps. People ask me to dance, and in that moment, I am free.
“I continue to set goals. I want to play 100 games for the National Team, be the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets in the history of the National Team, play in the Champions League with Aston Villa after 35/40 years.
They are difficult goals but I think I can achieve them, and I am sick with that."
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 27, 2024, 08:02:13 PM
That's class. Gotta love Emi.
Yep, tbf I was only aware of it because Toronto Villa posted it in the Emi thread.
Post by: frank black on February 27, 2024, 09:30:51 PM
Post by: DB on February 27, 2024, 09:34:30 PM
Apparently we are going to post a £138 million loss for 2023 (Kieran Maguire) and will be forced into sales this summer.
€138
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 27, 2024, 09:38:59 PM
Apparently we are going to post a £138 million loss for 2023 (Kieran Maguire) and will be forced into sales this summer.
€138
We'll be fine then (unless you meant to type €13B)
Post by: Ads on February 27, 2024, 09:40:53 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 27, 2024, 09:44:34 PM
We did this the other week. Supposedly UEFA have our predicted books. We'll see in a month.
Indeed. And then again in the summer. Be warned, don’t question Kieran McGuire on Villa twitter, they think the sun shines out of his arse.
Post by: DB on February 27, 2024, 09:48:39 PM
We did this the other week. Supposedly UEFA have our predicted books. We'll see in a month.
Indeed. And then again in the summer. Be warned, don’t question Kieran McGuire on Villa twitter, they think the sun shines out of his arse.
He was on a Villa podcast a few weeks back, didn’t say anything of value. Let’s see when the figures come out then.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on February 27, 2024, 09:49:40 PM
Disturbing if true.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 27, 2024, 09:49:59 PM
We did this the other week. Supposedly UEFA have our predicted books. We'll see in a month.
Indeed. And then again in the summer. Be warned, don’t question Kieran McGuire on Villa twitter, they think the sun shines out of his arse.
Not surprising, in 2011 Maguire won the award for Best UK Accountancy Lecturer. 8)
Post by: Ads on February 27, 2024, 09:50:41 PM
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 09:51:08 PM
Apparently we are going to post a £138 million loss for 2023 (Kieran Maguire) and will be forced into sales this summer.Isn't this what was reported last week
Post by: Beard82 on February 27, 2024, 09:51:45 PM
I don't see that we would sell him unless he has a release clause thats met. I doubt he would force it, and I don't think we would get what hes worth for it.That's class. Gotta love Emi.I agree, I think the only way we sell Emi is if he’s pushes to leave and hopefully we won’t be in a position where that’s an issue.
I think he's got it in him to act up and push for a move.
Doesn't seem like it to me.Quote from: Emi"It's the calmest moment of my entire career; now I'm playing with a free mind. Before, I played under the pressure that if I didn't perform well, I wouldn't play on the weekend.
"I'm enjoying football. I'm a different goalkeeper; I feel like I've achieved what I wanted as a footballer. Now, the best Emi is yet to come.
"I enjoy the warm-up; many feel pressure or are nervous. I feel like a child when he sees the park and runs to get on the slide.
"I look around and see the people; it gives me goosebumps. People ask me to dance, and in that moment, I am free.
“I continue to set goals. I want to play 100 games for the National Team, be the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets in the history of the National Team, play in the Champions League with Aston Villa after 35/40 years.
They are difficult goals but I think I can achieve them, and I am sick with that."
I think its more likely we sell a midfielder
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 09:57:53 PM
Post by: frank black on February 27, 2024, 09:59:23 PM
Apparently we are going to post a £138 million loss for 2023 (Kieran Maguire) and will be forced into sales this summer.Isn't this what was reported last week
Was it, apologies it’s doing the rounds on Twitter it seems, although the report does say 27/02 and £138 mil.
Post by: frank black on February 27, 2024, 10:00:29 PM
Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
Might struggle to sell Kamara in the summer
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 27, 2024, 10:09:13 PM
Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
Bizarre - on the former he’s really bloody good and the latter writing him off is just stupid.
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 10:14:17 PM
Looks like players will need to be sold . Those 2 would be on the list for me .Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
Bizarre - on the former he’s really bloody good and the latter writing him off is just stupid.
Post by: GordonCowansisthegreatest on February 27, 2024, 10:15:00 PM
Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss eitherMore than we'd miss you :-)
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 10:16:53 PM
Why ?Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
Might struggle to sell Kamara in the summer
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 27, 2024, 10:18:16 PM
Might struggle to sell Kamara in the summer
Why ?
ACL.
Post by: Risso on February 27, 2024, 10:18:18 PM
Why ?Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
Might struggle to sell Kamara in the summer
He's going to be injured until October.
Post by: Ads on February 27, 2024, 10:26:23 PM
It might come to something, but I'd prefer to make money out of non-core players if possible (if needed) Emi, Torres, Konsa, Dougie, Kamara, McGinn, Bailey Watkins must stay.
Digne would be a good one. Get decent profit and clear big wages. One of Mings or Carlos, Beundia perhaps.
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 10:34:59 PM
Post by: Gareth on February 27, 2024, 10:48:28 PM
Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
I’m glad you aren’t in charge then…Kamara is a fabulous player
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 10:53:58 PM
Yeah he's a good player. Point remains we may be forced to sell one of our better players to raise money . Selling Chambers and Dendonker might not cut it .Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
I’m glad you aren’t in charge then…Kamara is a fabulous player
Post by: Gareth on February 27, 2024, 10:55:18 PM
Post by: Gareth on February 27, 2024, 10:56:40 PM
Yeah he's a good player. Point remains we may be forced to sell one of our better players to raise money . Selling Chambers and Dendonker might not cut it .Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
I’m glad you aren’t in charge then…Kamara is a fabulous player
We won’t be forced to, we just take the punishment IF these reported figures are right that is
Post by: SoccerHQ on February 27, 2024, 11:03:26 PM
Can't we just sell Diaby to the Saudis?
I still think there's far more to come from Diaby. 90% of the fanbase wanted Bailey gone after his first season and now look at him.
Diaby was excellent first six weeks and then I don't know what happened, lost all momentum in his game bar the odd decent finish.
Whenever I see us needing to make a big sell to meet FFP I just can't help feeling it's going to be Ramsey at some point.
Would be tough cashing in on another academy boy done very good with potentially so much more to come but at the same time he's either been injured or getting up to speed for most of this season and we've been top 4 without him so don't think the sale would hurt us as much as say Luiz.
Kamara will struggle to play again in 2024 so he's going nowhere.
This pretty much means Digne will go in the summer given the wages he's on.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 27, 2024, 11:04:24 PM
Kieran Maguire knows the subject more than just about anyone.
Disturbing if true.
He does, but when he was on that pod a few weeks ago he sounded like he had Garth Crooks-like knowledge of the Villa situation.
Post by: WassallVillain on February 27, 2024, 11:12:33 PM
I doubt any Villa fan bar you would need to askWhy ?Sell Kamara and Diaby , don't think we'd miss either
Might struggle to sell Kamara in the summer
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 11:14:59 PM
Seems some are very quick to give up & propose selling the best players…how about we try behaving like a big club and just ignore it. Punishment is 6 points next season, will lose more points if we just flog the best playersJust ignore it yeah that sounds like a well thought out plan.
Post by: Gareth on February 27, 2024, 11:18:14 PM
Kieran Maguire knows the subject more than just about anyone.
Disturbing if true.
He does, but when he was on that pod a few weeks ago he sounded like he had Garth Crooks-like knowledge of the Villa situation.
Exactly, he might have an inkling of numbers but he won’t have any knowledge of any discussions betw Villa and the PL etc or any of the mitigations put forward if indeed we have breached anything
You certainly don’t create a ‘3m & Josh Onomah’ situation by selling quality at discount prices.
Dendonker to Zed FC for 50m :-)
Post by: Gareth on February 27, 2024, 11:21:41 PM
Seems some are very quick to give up & propose selling the best players…how about we try behaving like a big club and just ignore it. Punishment is 6 points next season, will lose more points if we just flog the best playersJust ignore it yeah that sounds like a well thought out plan.
Yep, ignore a rumour and deal with it if it becomes fact & trust that those who actually know the facts are dealing with it.
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 11:23:29 PM
We'll find out in the next few weeks.Seems some are very quick to give up & propose selling the best players…how about we try behaving like a big club and just ignore it. Punishment is 6 points next season, will lose more points if we just flog the best playersJust ignore it yeah that sounds like a well thought out plan.
Yep, ignore a rumour and deal with it if it becomes fact & trust that those who actually know the facts are dealing with it.
Post by: Gareth on February 27, 2024, 11:27:53 PM
We'll find out in the next few weeks.Seems some are very quick to give up & propose selling the best players…how about we try behaving like a big club and just ignore it. Punishment is 6 points next season, will lose more points if we just flog the best playersJust ignore it yeah that sounds like a well thought out plan.
Yep, ignore a rumour and deal with it if it becomes fact & trust that those who actually know the facts are dealing with it.
Indeed, guess it will be us and a few others in similar boats awaiting numbers. I know Chelsea have been mentioned
Post by: Smirker on February 27, 2024, 11:34:36 PM
Much as it pains me to say it, I think big emi will go. The drop-off between the worlds number 1 and any reserve is too big. £100m for Emi and replace him with at least 2 very good keepers would improve our squad and solve ffp in one go.
I'd be very surprised. If I had to predict one player I'd say Luiz. Martínez is constantly coming out with his aspirations and they always include us.
I know Ratboy left. I'm not saying Emi won't. But I doubt it.
Post by: VillaTim on February 27, 2024, 11:56:25 PM
We've got plenty of players worth over £50m so Emery would have a choice if it comes down to it.Much as it pains me to say it, I think big emi will go. The drop-off between the worlds number 1 and any reserve is too big. £100m for Emi and replace him with at least 2 very good keepers would improve our squad and solve ffp in one go.
I'd be very surprised. If I had to predict one player I'd say Luiz. Martínez is constantly coming out with his aspirations and they always include us.
I know Ratboy left. I'm not saying Emi won't. But I doubt it.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on February 28, 2024, 12:18:56 AM
It’d be Dougie or Ollie.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on February 28, 2024, 12:23:00 AM
Kieran Maguire knows the subject more than just about anyone.
Disturbing if true.
He does, but when he was on that pod a few weeks ago he sounded like he had Garth Crooks-like knowledge of the Villa situation.
Exactly, he might have an inkling of numbers but he won’t have any knowledge of any discussions betw Villa and the PL etc or any of the mitigations put forward if indeed we have breached anything
You certainly don’t create a ‘3m & Josh Onomah’ situation by selling quality at discount prices.
Dendonker to Zed FC for 50m :-)
I didn’t suggest he knew anything more than the numbers, and I hope we’re not having any discussions whatsoever with the PL.
I’m just saying, if there’s someone predicting FFP problems, I’d much rather it was someone who wouldn’t be able to find the ‘on’ button on a calculator or understand the basics of arithmetic, or indeed the concept of numbers - like, to pick a name at random that dribbling moron Coopers Injury who used to post here - than someone who is basically considered the media’s preeminent expert on football finance.
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 12:34:01 AM
Yeah spot on Gareth, you'd expect they will be knee deep in shite. It would be nice if Man Chea£y were finally dealt with too.We'll find out in the next few weeks.Seems some are very quick to give up & propose selling the best players…how about we try behaving like a big club and just ignore it. Punishment is 6 points next season, will lose more points if we just flog the best playersJust ignore it yeah that sounds like a well thought out plan.
Yep, ignore a rumour and deal with it if it becomes fact & trust that those who actually know the facts are dealing with it.
Indeed, guess it will be us and a few others in similar boats awaiting numbers. I know Chelsea have been mentioned
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 28, 2024, 03:11:44 AM
Kieran Maguire knows the subject more than just about anyone.
Disturbing if true.
He does, but when he was on that pod a few weeks ago he sounded like he had Garth Crooks-like knowledge of the Villa situation.
Exactly, he might have an inkling of numbers but he won’t have any knowledge of any discussions betw Villa and the PL etc or any of the mitigations put forward if indeed we have breached anything
You certainly don’t create a ‘3m & Josh Onomah’ situation by selling quality at discount prices.
Dendonker to Zed FC for 50m :-)
I didn’t suggest he knew anything more than the numbers, and I hope we’re not having any discussions whatsoever with the PL.
I’m just saying, if there’s someone predicting FFP problems, I’d much rather it was someone who wouldn’t be able to find the ‘on’ button on a calculator or understand the basics of arithmetic, or indeed the concept of numbers - like, to pick a name at random that dribbling moron Coopers Injury who used to post here - than someone who is basically considered the media’s preeminent expert on football finance.
He even got the numbers wrong on that podcast, (using out of date figures for match day income), and the year the Grealish money came in. Honestly, I felt like I did when I heard Shearer say Villa are doing well because they haven’t had any injuries. He sounded like he hadn’t had time to read up on us properly.
Plus he hasn’t said anything about this latest story. People have got confused because his @ was in the tweet, put there by someone hoping to attract him to comment.
Post by: sid1964 on February 28, 2024, 06:29:41 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 28, 2024, 08:00:02 AM
Kieran Maguire knows the subject more than just about anyone.
Disturbing if true.
Indeed, I don’t really understand how we could have posted that level of loss.
Post by: jwarry on February 28, 2024, 08:15:25 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on February 28, 2024, 08:25:40 AM
We know that our accounts were handed to the PL in December, and the PL are happy as we haven't been charged.
So if we have lost EUR 138m (and remember the UEFA report shows a lot lower operating loss), then it hasn't been large enough to trigger FFP issues on its own. It can only then be an issue if this years accounts push us over the edge. But this year will see significantly increased revenues (from better sponsor deal, european games, ticket price increases, higher PL prize money, etc. ).
Nobody knows anything about this seasons accounts except those inside the club, and we won't know anything until they're submitted for inspection in December and we do or don't get charged.
If we really ended last season with such massive problems, would we have spent another net £70m this season on top? And as we now can't sell until our next financial year, would we have really ended January without making a sale to bring this season back into compliance?
I'm not sure I've seen enough evidence to suggest we've put a monkey (or Chris Heck) in charge of the accounts.
Having to sell to spend or get some of the high earners like Coutinho and Digne off the books to earn wiggle room, I can see that. I can also see a loss that would be covered by selling lower valued players than our stars.
Post by: sid1964 on February 28, 2024, 09:01:43 AM
Post by: Dave on February 28, 2024, 09:04:57 AM
Of course there is a certain £17m player plying his trade in Saudi that could be sold….
*wracks brain*
Nope, I got nothing.
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 09:07:34 AM
Of course there is a certain £17m player plying his trade in Saudi that could be sold….He's in Qatar and we will have to give him away
Post by: Ads on February 28, 2024, 09:13:19 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on February 28, 2024, 09:37:29 AM
If he's got a year left come the summer, would we be better served loaning him again until it expires if we cannot achieve a £5.6m fee as a minimum to break even on the balance sheet?
I believe his deal is up in 2026.
Post by: PaulWinch again on February 28, 2024, 09:40:00 AM
Post by: Villan82 on February 28, 2024, 09:43:05 AM
Oh.
Post by: sid1964 on February 28, 2024, 09:47:17 AM
Post by: Risso on February 28, 2024, 09:55:52 AM
That figures doesn't quite add up to me, but we'll see at the end of the month I guess.
For comparison, in the accounts for the year before (31 May 2022), we made an operating loss (ie before anything to do with player costs) of £14m. We then had amortisation of £83m, making the loss worse, but profit on disposal of players (Grealish mainly) of £97m which offsets it. With a few quid of interest in and out, there was a small profit for the year.
So conceivably, if the operating loss stays broadly similar this year, and we sold no players, then with the amortisation we could be looking at a loss of c. £100m. Add increased amortisation for players bought and an increase in wages, and I guess you could be getting that up over £100m. But if we look at the post balance sheet events note that mentions everything that happens between 31 May 2022 and 28 Feb 2023, then it states that we sold players worth £48m, which I reckon is Targett (£15m) Trez (£4m) Chukwuemeka (£18m), Ings (£12m), El Ghazi (£2m). Most of that would have been profit as all except Ings had been here a while, and Chukwuemeka was a youth player.
The same note says we bought players worth £63m, ie Carlos (£26m), Duran (£15m), Moreno (£12m) Dendocker (£13m). For the sake of argument, if they're all on an average 3 year contract, that's an extra £20m a year amortisation. So a very rough back of a fag packet calculation:
2022 operating loss: (£14m). Add maybe another £10m for 2023, that's (£24m). Take 2022 amortisation of (£83m) deduct say £10m and add amortiastion of new players = (£93m) Add that to the operating loss to give total loss of (£117m). Take off say, £36m for profit on players sold, gives a loss of (£81m). Not great but nowhere near what's being reported. Obviously I have no idea if that guess at an operating loss is correct. If it's way more, then the loss figure being reported could be right, and if it's less then it'll be smaller.
Apologies for quoting myself, but I've been thinking more about how the loss could be what's reported. I guess there will be compensation for Gerrard and all his team in there, which will be a few million, and possibly something for Purslow as well. Then there was a reported £6m fee paid to Villarreal for acquiring Unai. All of that could be getting up to £15m+, possibly.
Post by: Risso on February 28, 2024, 09:57:29 AM
With regards to the stopping of the re-development, maybe the club could not afford to have 10,000 less fans in the ground for each home game for the next 2-3 seasons?
I don't think that's relevant. It doesn't matter from an FFP point of view, as a reduction in capacity for building is an allowable exceptional event. Obviously it would reduce our income but it would be small beer for Nas in terms of day to day cash flow.
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 09:59:23 AM
I still can’t work out how we would have made a £138m loss.wasn't the last published accounts a £37m loss and before that a £99m loss (covid impact in there though).
Post by: Monty on February 28, 2024, 10:02:38 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on February 28, 2024, 10:16:02 AM
With regards to the stopping of the re-development, maybe the club could not afford to have 10,000 less fans in the ground for each home game for the next 2-3 seasons?What does the North Stand currently hold? It's about 6,000 isn't it? The cheapest tickets in the stadium too. And it was a 2 year build not a 2-3.
Post by: Rigadon on February 28, 2024, 10:32:11 AM
Post by: LeeB on February 28, 2024, 10:43:56 AM
It's only 6 points anyway. It just means we'll have to actually beat Man Utd next season. So fuck it.
Yeah, take the capitalist approach. Is the fine smaller than the benefits? Yes, of course, so just crack on.
Post by: eamonn on February 28, 2024, 10:44:43 AM
If he's got a year left come the summer, would we be better served loaning him again until it expires if we cannot achieve a £5.6m fee as a minimum to break even on the balance sheet?
I believe his deal is up in 2026.
It is, remarkably. Given the subsequent changes in direction of success with regards to Villa and Coutinho, that night at the end of season awards when Purslow dropped the "good news" of securing Coutinho's future looks bizarre and a bit cringe. We outgrew him when we were previously grateful for him to wow our other players in training.
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 10:47:02 AM
absolutely awful signing £17m and probably close to £10m a year salary, no wonder the accounts are a messIf he's got a year left come the summer, would we be better served loaning him again until it expires if we cannot achieve a £5.6m fee as a minimum to break even on the balance sheet?
I believe his deal is up in 2026.
It is, remarkably. Given the subsequent changes in direction of success with regards to Villa and Coutinho, that night at the end of season awards when Purslow dropped the "good news" of securing Coutinho's future looks bizarre and a bit cringe. We outgrew him when we were previously grateful for him to wow our other players in training.
Post by: chrisw1 on February 28, 2024, 10:49:11 AM
I can't recall many people complaining at the time. It was the signing that was going to launch us towards the elite.absolutely awful signing £17m and probably close to £10m a year salary, no wonder the accounts are a messIf he's got a year left come the summer, would we be better served loaning him again until it expires if we cannot achieve a £5.6m fee as a minimum to break even on the balance sheet?
I believe his deal is up in 2026.
It is, remarkably. Given the subsequent changes in direction of success with regards to Villa and Coutinho, that night at the end of season awards when Purslow dropped the "good news" of securing Coutinho's future looks bizarre and a bit cringe. We outgrew him when we were previously grateful for him to wow our other players in training.
Post by: London Villan on February 28, 2024, 10:59:05 AM
As soon as his mate was sacked, then his days were numbered. Pity we can't at least get some of that £17m back...
Post by: Somniloquism on February 28, 2024, 11:03:39 AM
I can't recall many people complaining at the time. It was the signing that was going to launch us towards the elite.absolutely awful signing £17m and probably close to £10m a year salary, no wonder the accounts are a messIf he's got a year left come the summer, would we be better served loaning him again until it expires if we cannot achieve a £5.6m fee as a minimum to break even on the balance sheet?
I believe his deal is up in 2026.
It is, remarkably. Given the subsequent changes in direction of success with regards to Villa and Coutinho, that night at the end of season awards when Purslow dropped the "good news" of securing Coutinho's future looks bizarre and a bit cringe. We outgrew him when we were previously grateful for him to wow our other players in training.
I think I raised it as no. Simply because the injuries and the poor displays once Gerrard had chance to "coach" him during the loan period.
Post by: Stu on February 28, 2024, 11:04:16 AM
He doesn't know anymore here, as its the same report Smirker posted that we all dissected. Can't see how we've lost that much, but we'll see.
Hey, that was my scoop!
Post by: Ads on February 28, 2024, 11:05:24 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 28, 2024, 11:08:43 AM
I can't recall many people complaining at the time. It was the signing that was going to launch us towards the elite.
Agreed.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 28, 2024, 11:10:08 AM
He doesn't know anymore here, as its the same report Smirker posted that we all dissected. Can't see how we've lost that much, but we'll see.
Hey, that was my scoop!
Are you accusing Ads of stealing your pint? >:(
Post by: eamonn on February 28, 2024, 11:10:27 AM
Post by: danno on February 28, 2024, 11:10:40 AM
I can't recall many people complaining at the time. It was the signing that was going to launch us towards the elite.
I was definitely on the fence, and in hindsight we probably had to give him a long deal because his Barcelona wages were so high. A bit like when we signed Shay Given.
Quote
His age does concern me, just because of how other very good "number 10's" have fared after they turned 30.
Juan Mata and Mesut Ozil are two recent examples.
Not against the signing (far from it) I just hope we don't go full Paul Faulkner and give a 30 year old a five year deal.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 28, 2024, 11:11:44 AM
Well, we're all easily seduced by a bit of Brazilian magic.
You're too kind.
Post by: Ads on February 28, 2024, 11:13:31 AM
He doesn't know anymore here, as its the same report Smirker posted that we all dissected. Can't see how we've lost that much, but we'll see.
Hey, that was my scoop!
Are you accusing Ads of stealing your pint? >:(
No I said Smirker said it as I thought it was him that brought it up.
Post by: Risso on February 28, 2024, 11:19:22 AM
I can't recall many people complaining at the time. It was the signing that was going to launch us towards the elite.
It also massively boosted our profile at the time, and possibly helped with retaining our better players and signing people like Kamara.
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 11:19:57 AM
bar his debut and the Leeds game he's been largely crap. His injury record and wages etc and a 4 year deal ! raised eyebrows . Anyway its backfired massively.I can't recall many people complaining at the time. It was the signing that was going to launch us towards the elite.absolutely awful signing £17m and probably close to £10m a year salary, no wonder the accounts are a messIf he's got a year left come the summer, would we be better served loaning him again until it expires if we cannot achieve a £5.6m fee as a minimum to break even on the balance sheet?
I believe his deal is up in 2026.
It is, remarkably. Given the subsequent changes in direction of success with regards to Villa and Coutinho, that night at the end of season awards when Purslow dropped the "good news" of securing Coutinho's future looks bizarre and a bit cringe. We outgrew him when we were previously grateful for him to wow our other players in training.
Post by: SoccerHQ on February 28, 2024, 11:20:09 AM
He's played very very well for most of 2023 and started this year fine so you're talking a player who we could sell for what we signed Diaby if we'd wanted to given his productivity.
Given it wasn't that long a contract extension perhaps the plan is just to get another 18 months and then sell him in summer 2025?
We have very credible people running the football side of things so I think there is a plan but it might not be one people are too happy with to meet our FFP requirements.
Post by: aev on February 28, 2024, 11:21:40 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 28, 2024, 11:28:51 AM
bar his debut and the Leeds game he's been largely crap. His injury record and wages etc and a 4 year deal ! raised eyebrows .
It's not like you to raise eyebrows.
Post by: OCD on February 28, 2024, 11:30:59 AM
Purslow's recent comments were interesting. And I agree with the point he made about a system that encourages you to sell your homegrown talent isn't right.
Post by: Ads on February 28, 2024, 11:30:59 AM
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 11:33:22 AM
Handing Bailey a big new contract. Signing Captian Rogers and the Serbian Cafu are also two other unusual steps to take if you've apparently lost €138m.At least it would prove consistency in financial mismanagement
Post by: Stu on February 28, 2024, 11:37:15 AM
He doesn't know anymore here, as its the same report Smirker posted that we all dissected. Can't see how we've lost that much, but we'll see.
Hey, that was my scoop!
Are you accusing Ads of stealing your pint? >:(
No I said Smirker said it as I thought it was him that brought it up.
I take posting on this forum incredibly seriously
Post by: Risso on February 28, 2024, 11:37:46 AM
I have seen talk of FFP being discussed by the Premier League chairmen at their next meeting, with the view to relaxing the rules a bit.
Purslow's recent comments were interesting. And I agree with the point he made about a system that encourages you to sell your homegrown talent isn't right.
They need to decide what it is that they want to achieve. FFP doesn't really work on any level. None of the clubs owned by gazillionaires are going to go bust. And it obviously hasn't created a level playing field in terms of silverware won, as Man City have literally won everything and got away with murder. Then if you take a club like Forest, deducting points such that they get relegated is obviously going to make their financial situation much worse, which seems self-defeating.
I certainly don't want a free for all as otherwise Newcastle would be offering Emi and Torres £1m a week to get themselves up the A1 inside the first five minutes, but the current situation just isn't working at all.
Post by: Somniloquism on February 28, 2024, 11:50:49 AM
I have seen talk of FFP being discussed by the Premier League chairmen at their next meeting, with the view to relaxing the rules a bit.
Purslow's recent comments were interesting. And I agree with the point he made about a system that encourages you to sell your homegrown talent isn't right.
It might be that the limits have not changed with inflation so might be discussing altering those up.
Post by: ASHTONVILLA on February 28, 2024, 12:07:36 PM
I would imagine we would also try to sell Archer again. Digne will be hawked about as he is a big earner we already have Moreno. Can see Duran being sold, and us making a decent profit on him too (already been replaced by Rogers).
Dendoncker, Olsen, Chambers and Coutinho will all be either loaned or sold. Carlos would probably go if a decent offer came in too, given Mings will be back.
Of that lot, Ramsey is the only one I would be upset about going.
Edit - would also have Lenglet and possibly Zaniolo off the wage bill next season too. One would hope that the squad players can be replaced with youth players like Iroegbunam, Kellyman, Kesler-Hayden, and the two new youngsters signed in January.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 28, 2024, 12:12:31 PM
Do you have any thoughts on a better way as a measurement purely based on the P&L performance is not adequate?I have seen talk of FFP being discussed by the Premier League chairmen at their next meeting, with the view to relaxing the rules a bit.
Purslow's recent comments were interesting. And I agree with the point he made about a system that encourages you to sell your homegrown talent isn't right.
They need to decide what it is that they want to achieve. FFP doesn't really work on any level. None of the clubs owned by gazillionaires are going to go bust. And it obviously hasn't created a level playing field in terms of silverware won, as Man City have literally won everything and got away with murder. Then if you take a club like Forest, deducting points such that they get relegated is obviously going to make their financial situation much worse, which seems self-defeating.
I certainly don't want a free for all as otherwise Newcastle would be offering Emi and Torres £1m a week to get themselves up the A1 inside the first five minutes, but the current situation just isn't working at all.
Obviously they need rules regarding related party activity.
The problem is that FFP was bought in to stop clubs going bust which to an extent has worked, they are now needing to deal with the unfair competition being driven by clubs with unlimited resources.
Interesting to hear your views.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on February 28, 2024, 12:18:50 PM
Do you have any thoughts on a better way as a measurement purely based on the P&L performance is not adequate?I have seen talk of FFP being discussed by the Premier League chairmen at their next meeting, with the view to relaxing the rules a bit.
Purslow's recent comments were interesting. And I agree with the point he made about a system that encourages you to sell your homegrown talent isn't right.
They need to decide what it is that they want to achieve. FFP doesn't really work on any level. None of the clubs owned by gazillionaires are going to go bust. And it obviously hasn't created a level playing field in terms of silverware won, as Man City have literally won everything and got away with murder. Then if you take a club like Forest, deducting points such that they get relegated is obviously going to make their financial situation much worse, which seems self-defeating.
I certainly don't want a free for all as otherwise Newcastle would be offering Emi and Torres £1m a week to get themselves up the A1 inside the first five minutes, but the current situation just isn't working at all.
Obviously they need rules regarding related party activity.
The problem is that FFP was bought in to stop clubs going bust which to an extent has worked, they are now needing to deal with the unfair competition being driven by clubs with unlimited resources.
Interesting to hear your views.
I think you look at limiting the number of players you can purchase including loans so teams cant stock pile players to manipulate the system. Also look at a wage cap but that would have to be worldwide thing with FIFA to implement
Post by: Somniloquism on February 28, 2024, 12:29:22 PM
Post by: London Villan on February 28, 2024, 12:30:01 PM
Limiting loans
Maximum squad sizes
Transparent transfer deals with fees clearly reported
Transfer deadline before season starts - no other transfers
Then more radically...
Budget caps for transfers (but you can profit from sales) on a sliding scale with promoted teams given highest limits...
None of that favours the current hierarchy though.
Post by: Ads on February 28, 2024, 12:34:24 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 28, 2024, 12:37:00 PM
Make FFP indexed to inflation. You allow for bigger permissible losses and given they're ultimately guaranteed by owners, you're still managing risk.Works for bigger well financed clubs, but losses are not guaranteed by owners.
Post by: SoccerHQ on February 28, 2024, 12:45:13 PM
Handing Bailey a big new contract. Signing Captian Rogers and the Serbian Cafu are also two other unusual steps to take if you've apparently lost €138m.
The young players are just guys we can just move on if they don't work out. Rogers scores 4-5 goals in a season but dosen't step up to the level needed, can just sell him to a newly promoted club in two years for more than we paid.
It makes more sense then getting in a Digne or Coutinho who are nearly impossible to shift permanently with the wages they're on.
Post by: Risso on February 28, 2024, 12:48:35 PM
Handing Bailey a big new contract. Signing Captian Rogers and the Serbian Cafu are also two other unusual steps to take if you've apparently lost €138m.
The young players are just guys we can just move on if they don't work out. Rogers scores 4-5 goals in a season but dosen't step up to the level needed, can just sell him to a newly promoted club in two years for more than we paid.
It makes more sense then getting in a Digne or Coutinho who are nearly impossible to shift permanently with the wages they're on.
I think the point is surely you wouldn't be buying anybody at all if the situation was that bad.
Post by: chrisw1 on February 28, 2024, 12:53:33 PM
If we need to sell, then the most likely will be Ramsey who would fetch in £40m plus, and would be pure FFP profit.
Can someone explain to me why the likes of Luiz, Konsa, Kamara, Mings & McGinn wouldn't be pure FFP profit? Probably Watkins too by this summer. Surely their initial fees have already all been amortised so there's nothing in the books for them?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 28, 2024, 01:00:09 PM
If we need to sell, then the most likely will be Ramsey who would fetch in £40m plus, and would be pure FFP profit.
Can someone explain to me why the likes of Luiz, Konsa, Kamara, Mings & McGinn wouldn't be pure FFP profit? Probably Watkins too by this summer. Surely their initial fees have already all been amortised so there's nothing in the books for them?
I'm no accountant, but here's what I think...
Post by: Dogtanian on February 28, 2024, 01:05:11 PM
If we need to sell, then the most likely will be Ramsey who would fetch in £40m plus, and would be pure FFP profit.
Can someone explain to me why the likes of Luiz, Konsa, Kamara, Mings & McGinn wouldn't be pure FFP profit? Probably Watkins too by this summer. Surely their initial fees have already all been amortised so there's nothing in the books for them?
Yep, Mings, Martinez, Konsa, Luiz, and McGinn are all paid off as it were.
Looking at the deals, I don't think our yearly depreciation has gone up season on season, it looks to be about £71m again, when you take into account the new signings and drop-offs. We've had about £20m come off and added about £18m a year.
Again, it doesn't look on the outside like we are out of control and heading for a crash.
Post by: Goldenballs on February 28, 2024, 01:18:27 PM
Man City could just buy one of our players for a laugh, then stick them on the bench for a couple of seasons.
Post by: Smithy on February 28, 2024, 01:21:46 PM
If we need to sell, then the most likely will be Ramsey who would fetch in £40m plus, and would be pure FFP profit.
Can someone explain to me why the likes of Luiz, Konsa, Kamara, Mings & McGinn wouldn't be pure FFP profit? Probably Watkins too by this summer. Surely their initial fees have already all been amortised so there's nothing in the books for them?
They would. Anyone past the point of the end of their original contract with us would now be sold at 100% profit as far as FFP is concerned. With Kamara I'm not sure how "signing on fees" are accounted for in FFP, whether they're treated like wages, or something else in the world of FFP to prevent people simply flipping free transfers every year. But the rest, yes, pretty much all profit now. McGinn for £50m or Ramsey for £50m would be about the same in FFP benefit, I would imagine.
People just tend to think of FFP sales in terms of youth players first and foremost, simply because for most clubs that's pretty much the best - or only - option. Chelsea, for example, are lumbered with a squad full of over-priced players who wouldn't generate a penny in FFP profit if they were sold today. But I'd say we're well above average when it come to having purchased players now well in the black. Not only in addition to the ones you mentioned, there is Tielemens, and players like Martinez and Bailey who are now worth considerably more than we paid (and their FFP value has depreciated over the last few years too). Ollie's FFP value will be down to about 6/7 million this summer, too.
We've definitely had our flops, just like everyone, but considering we've been back in the premier league less than five full years, I think we've done really well to assemble not only a very good squad, but also one that's probably worth quite a lot more than we paid for it.
Post by: eamonn on February 28, 2024, 01:22:31 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on February 28, 2024, 01:37:39 PM
Why do we not have the same faith in the likes of Wes / Nas / Monchi etc to know what they are doing also. I am sure the former have not amassed their wealth by oversights like failing compliance.
I prefer to let them guys look after the finances of our club as i dont understand / know enough to be able to comment with any significance as i am sure some of the journo's who get involved also. Our accounts are published periodically - other than that no one will know what the details are.
Post by: Smithy on February 28, 2024, 01:45:40 PM
We all use the mantra of "In Unai we trust"
Why do we not have the same faith in the likes of Wes / Nas / Monchi etc to know what they are doing also. I am sure the former have not amassed their wealth by oversights like failing compliance.
I prefer to let them guys look after the finances of our club as i dont understand / know enough to be able to comment with any significance as i am sure some of the journo's who get involved also. Our accounts are published periodically - other than that no one will know what the details are.
This is a good point, I'm also pretty sure accounts don't allow you to get a true picture of our FFP position anyway, as individual transfer costs aren't listed, so you're still guessing what was paid for players and therefore what their FFP balance is.
Like you, I trust the owners, they don't strike me as the sort to sail to close to the wind, so even if we DO have to sell to buy this summer, it won't be because we've been 'mismanaged', it'll be because strategically the club have agreed that's what we need to do to move forwards and upwards.
Post by: lovejoy on February 28, 2024, 01:47:46 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on February 28, 2024, 02:02:39 PM
Quote
I cannot believe the owners would allow such obvious overspending. It just doesn’t make sense.
So chances and logic should dictate that they haven't
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 02:19:13 PM
If we have to sell a key player to the cheating fucker teams to strengthen them and weaken us because of some bollocks FFP rules, I'll be absolutely fuming.isn't that what they've done with Grealish
Man City could just buy one of our players for a laugh, then stick them on the bench for a couple of seasons.
Post by: algy on February 28, 2024, 02:57:11 PM
I think most people would have seen it as a £17m gamble - which for a player that was sold a couple of years previously for +£100m was worthwhile.Yep, this. We paid £17m for a player who might've returned to being a £100m+ player. It didn't work out. There'll be other similar buys that do work out (e.g. Tyrone Mings was arguably a similar signing - loan then purchase of an out-of-favour player). These things happen - it was worth a punt.
As soon as his mate was sacked, then his days were numbered. Pity we can't at least get some of that £17m back...
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 03:02:33 PM
i think it's a big mistake . The loan was perfect and anyone with a rationale head could see Coutinho was a busted flush other than irregular moments of magic. It was a crazy signing and again Purslow getting too involved doesn't helpI think most people would have seen it as a £17m gamble - which for a player that was sold a couple of years previously for +£100m was worthwhile.Yep, this. We paid £17m for a player who might've returned to being a £100m+ player. It didn't work out. There'll be other similar buys that do work out (e.g. Tyrone Mings was arguably a similar signing - loan then purchase of an out-of-favour player). These things happen - it was worth a punt.
As soon as his mate was sacked, then his days were numbered. Pity we can't at least get some of that £17m back...
Post by: caster troy on February 28, 2024, 03:02:57 PM
If Purslow had accidentally driven us into a financial abyss you'd think he'd be in hiding rather than sitting with the away fans at games.
It doesn't make sense to me however things have been going so well I am fully expecting it to happen.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 28, 2024, 03:09:22 PM
In net spend terms in 22/23 we lost £50m but we did bring in £20m for Chukwuemeka which was pure FFP profit and must have covered a few of our signings year one FFP. So if there was an issue it must surely have been around wages, I don't even want to know how much we were paying Coutinho, Ings etc. But we were also offering a huge deal to Chukwuemeka too so can't have been that concerned?
If Purslow had accidentally driven us into a financial abyss you'd think he'd be in hiding rather than sitting with the away fans at games.
It doesn't make sense to me however things have been going so well I am fully expecting it to happen.
The bloke gave fifty grand to the Tory party. I doubt shame takes up any space in his emotional palette.
Post by: London Villan on February 28, 2024, 03:09:49 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on February 28, 2024, 03:17:00 PM
All joking aside, if he did leave sufficient mess to cause a problem in this years figures, we had a chance to nullify it by not spending £70m more on top…
So, I don’t think we can put the blame at his door if there does turn out to be an issue.
Post by: Smithy on February 28, 2024, 03:21:42 PM
i think it's a big mistake . The loan was perfect and anyone with a rationale head could see Coutinho was a busted flush other than irregular moments of magic. It was a crazy signing and again Purslow getting too involved doesn't helpI think most people would have seen it as a £17m gamble - which for a player that was sold a couple of years previously for +£100m was worthwhile.Yep, this. We paid £17m for a player who might've returned to being a £100m+ player. It didn't work out. There'll be other similar buys that do work out (e.g. Tyrone Mings was arguably a similar signing - loan then purchase of an out-of-favour player). These things happen - it was worth a punt.
As soon as his mate was sacked, then his days were numbered. Pity we can't at least get some of that £17m back...
I think there is a bit of revisionism going on here. In his six months with us on loan he scored 5 goals from 16 starts. Not bad considering the team wasn't great at that point. Was he the player Liverpool had? Of course not. Was he a player worth a £17m gamble? Absolutely. I'm sure his wages are very high, but while he's on loan in Qatar that's not hurting us anyway. The fact he got that hamstring injury and never really got fit again for us until after Unai was in and up and running definitely cost him his place here.
Clearly Unai and his team want him off the wage bill so they can bring in their own players, and that's absolutely fine, but I also think that if we had an injury crisis that meant he had to play a part in our team again (a la Chambers), then Unai could get a tune out of him. It won't happen though, and I suspect we'll see him go somewhere in the Middle East on a permanent this summer. Whether we cover our FFP position or not is anyone's guess, but even if he went on a free, it would still only cost is about £8m in FFP terms now.
Post by: Gareth on February 28, 2024, 03:35:57 PM
i think it's a big mistake . The loan was perfect and anyone with a rationale head could see Coutinho was a busted flush other than irregular moments of magic. It was a crazy signing and again Purslow getting too involved doesn't helpI think most people would have seen it as a £17m gamble - which for a player that was sold a couple of years previously for +£100m was worthwhile.Yep, this. We paid £17m for a player who might've returned to being a £100m+ player. It didn't work out. There'll be other similar buys that do work out (e.g. Tyrone Mings was arguably a similar signing - loan then purchase of an out-of-favour player). These things happen - it was worth a punt.
As soon as his mate was sacked, then his days were numbered. Pity we can't at least get some of that £17m back...
I think there is a bit of revisionism going on here. In his six months with us on loan he scored 5 goals from 16 starts. Not bad considering the team wasn't great at that point. Was he the player Liverpool had? Of course not. Was he a player worth a £17m gamble? Absolutely. I'm sure his wages are very high, but while he's on loan in Qatar that's not hurting us anyway. The fact he got that hamstring injury and never really got fit again for us until after Unai was in and up and running definitely cost him his place here.
Clearly Unai and his team want him off the wage bill so they can bring in their own players, and that's absolutely fine, but I also think that if we had an injury crisis that meant he had to play a part in our team again (a la Chambers), then Unai could get a tune out of him. It won't happen though, and I suspect we'll see him go somewhere in the Middle East on a permanent this summer. Whether we cover our FFP position or not is anyone's guess, but even if he went on a free, it would still only cost is about £8m in FFP terms now.
And let’s not forget during that loan spell there were plenty panicking that if we didn’t make it permanent that Newcastle would style in and nick him from us.
Doesn’t look great in hindsight but it was a gamble the club took…it just didnt work
Post by: Somniloquism on February 28, 2024, 03:38:03 PM
I think there is a bit of revisionism going on here. In his six months with us on loan he scored 5 goals from 16 starts. Not bad considering the team wasn't great at that point. Was he the player Liverpool had? Of course not. Was he a player worth a £17m gamble? Absolutely. I'm sure his wages are very high, but while he's on loan in Qatar that's not hurting us anyway. The fact he got that hamstring injury and never really got fit again for us until after Unai was in and up and running definitely cost him his place here.
4 goals in 16 starts, or 5 goals in all 19 games. However when you break it down further, 4 goals (and three assists) in 8 matches. One goal in the last 11. It was those 11, the lack of impact in most of these matches and actually Buendia's form in the same period of lack of impact (two goals and three assists whilst mostly being a sub) that had me thinking save the Coutinho money for someone else.
Post by: Risso on February 28, 2024, 03:40:11 PM
In net spend terms in 22/23 we lost £50m but we did bring in £20m for Chukwuemeka which was pure FFP profit and must have covered a few of our signings year one FFP. So if there was an issue it must surely have been around wages, I don't even want to know how much we were paying Coutinho, Ings etc. But we were also offering a huge deal to Chukwuemeka too so can't have been that concerned?
If Purslow had accidentally driven us into a financial abyss you'd think he'd be in hiding rather than sitting with the away fans at games.
It doesn't make sense to me however things have been going so well I am fully expecting it to happen.
The bloke gave fifty grand to the Tory party. I doubt shame takes up any space in his emotional palette.
Sawiris gave them £200K.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on February 28, 2024, 03:43:13 PM
I think there is a bit of revisionism going on here. In his six months with us on loan he scored 5 goals from 16 starts. Not bad considering the team wasn't great at that point. Was he the player Liverpool had? Of course not. Was he a player worth a £17m gamble? Absolutely. I'm sure his wages are very high, but while he's on loan in Qatar that's not hurting us anyway. The fact he got that hamstring injury and never really got fit again for us until after Unai was in and up and running definitely cost him his place here.
And let’s not forget during that loan spell there were plenty panicking that if we didn’t make it permanent that Newcastle would style in and nick him from us.
Doesn’t look great in hindsight but it was a gamble the club took…it just didnt work
Agreed, I seem to recall the mood being pretty euphoric on here, with lots of chat about how we'd pulled Barca's pants down by negotiating a lower price than previously agreed.
Post by: lovejoy on February 28, 2024, 05:06:48 PM
Well as Purslow left in June 2023 and we know the accounts up to May 2023 aren’t in breach, he must have had one hell of a leaving party and golden handshake to screw us up!
All joking aside, if he did leave sufficient mess to cause a problem in this years figures, we had a chance to nullify it by not spending £70m more on top…
So, I don’t think we can put the blame at his door if there does turn out to be an issue.
How do we know that?
Post by: VillaTim on February 28, 2024, 05:12:53 PM
Interesting, wonder what he's after , probably planning permission for an Orangery or similarIn net spend terms in 22/23 we lost £50m but we did bring in £20m for Chukwuemeka which was pure FFP profit and must have covered a few of our signings year one FFP. So if there was an issue it must surely have been around wages, I don't even want to know how much we were paying Coutinho, Ings etc. But we were also offering a huge deal to Chukwuemeka too so can't have been that concerned?
If Purslow had accidentally driven us into a financial abyss you'd think he'd be in hiding rather than sitting with the away fans at games.
It doesn't make sense to me however things have been going so well I am fully expecting it to happen.
The bloke gave fifty grand to the Tory party. I doubt shame takes up any space in his emotional palette.
Post by: Dogtanian on February 28, 2024, 05:14:19 PM
Well as Purslow left in June 2023 and we know the accounts up to May 2023 aren’t in breach, he must have had one hell of a leaving party and golden handshake to screw us up!
All joking aside, if he did leave sufficient mess to cause a problem in this years figures, we had a chance to nullify it by not spending £70m more on top…
So, I don’t think we can put the blame at his door if there does turn out to be an issue.
How do we know that?
Because all clubs had to submit last seasons accounts in December so any breaches could be charged this season. Only Forest and Everton were charged.
Post by: Villan82 on February 28, 2024, 05:27:37 PM
With regards to the stopping of the re-development, maybe the club could not afford to have 10,000 less fans in the ground for each home game for the next 2-3 seasons?
It would be 6k and if that is the reason there is never a time we can do it?
Post by: eamonn on February 28, 2024, 06:10:08 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on February 28, 2024, 06:15:03 PM
Edit: Although I would have thought he would have tore up the league a bit more then he has done though.
Post by: lovejoy on February 28, 2024, 06:25:56 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 28, 2024, 06:43:49 PM
In net spend terms in 22/23 we lost £50m but we did bring in £20m for Chukwuemeka which was pure FFP profit and must have covered a few of our signings year one FFP. So if there was an issue it must surely have been around wages, I don't even want to know how much we were paying Coutinho, Ings etc. But we were also offering a huge deal to Chukwuemeka too so can't have been that concerned?
If Purslow had accidentally driven us into a financial abyss you'd think he'd be in hiding rather than sitting with the away fans at games.
It doesn't make sense to me however things have been going so well I am fully expecting it to happen.
The bloke gave fifty grand to the Tory party. I doubt shame takes up any space in his emotional palette.
Sawiris gave them £200K.
Would you like to take a guess how I feel about that/him?!
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 29, 2024, 11:04:59 PM
“I am not thinking about letting him [Jacob Ramsey] leave, even in the case some teams are offering us a lot. Right now I don't want that - I completely don't want that. I want to work with him and try and help him increase his level because I am selfish and I want him at his best for me.” UE.
Post by: olaftab on February 29, 2024, 11:20:42 PM
Post by: olaftab on February 29, 2024, 11:28:05 PM
Yes it would be 6 but because we have to accommodate 30000 STs in 34000 seats assuming 2000 for aways we lose revenue at the top end of seat selling price.With regards to the stopping of the re-development, maybe the club could not afford to have 10,000 less fans in the ground for each home game for the next 2-3 seasons?
It would be 6k and if that is the reason there is never a time we can do it?
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 01:44:23 AM
Seems like Ramsey won’t be included in the fire sale that David Ornstein said is definitely happening before the end of June or we’ll get points deducted.
“I am not thinking about letting him [Jacob Ramsey] leave, even in the case some teams are offering us a lot. Right now I don't want that - I completely don't want that. I want to work with him and try and help him increase his level because I am selfish and I want him at his best for me.” UE.
The transfer window doesn’t open until July does it? Also if a “fire sale” is required begs the question what have we been doing?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 01, 2024, 02:05:51 AM
Seems like Ramsey won’t be included in the fire sale that David Ornstein said is definitely happening before the end of June or we’ll get points deducted.
“I am not thinking about letting him [Jacob Ramsey] leave, even in the case some teams are offering us a lot. Right now I don't want that - I completely don't want that. I want to work with him and try and help him increase his level because I am selfish and I want him at his best for me.” UE.
The transfer window doesn’t open until July does it? Also if a “fire sale” is required begs the question what have we been doing?
I’m not predicting that here. It’s more a comment on how some posters were absolutely convinced that David Ornstein’s siren voice back in January was entirely credible.
Post by: LeeB on March 01, 2024, 09:14:59 AM
Not sure if siren voice is applicable in his case, he sounds like a heavily stoned Prince William when he talks.Seems like Ramsey won’t be included in the fire sale that David Ornstein said is definitely happening before the end of June or we’ll get points deducted.
“I am not thinking about letting him [Jacob Ramsey] leave, even in the case some teams are offering us a lot. Right now I don't want that - I completely don't want that. I want to work with him and try and help him increase his level because I am selfish and I want him at his best for me.” UE.
The transfer window doesn’t open until July does it? Also if a “fire sale” is required begs the question what have we been doing?
I’m not predicting that here. It’s more a comment on how some posters were absolutely convinced that David Ornstein’s siren voice back in January was entirely credible.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 09:48:44 AM
Post by: Villan82 on March 01, 2024, 09:56:34 AM
The club feels it can dismiss fans and ride roughshod over people who have given decades of support then it is a two way street.
Post by: LeeB on March 01, 2024, 10:18:34 AM
Also, and I hope this doesn’t come to pass, I rate JJ and think he’s great (completely proved me wrong in my initial view on him) but if push came to shove I count 6 (off the top of my head) players I’d rather keep. That’s also considering likely value, benefit in terms of P&S as well. Hope it doesn’t come to that of course!
Are you mad? He's the last player I'd sell!
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 10:47:55 AM
Also, and I hope this doesn’t come to pass, I rate JJ and think he’s great (completely proved me wrong in my initial view on him) but if push came to shove I count 6 (off the top of my head) players I’d rather keep. That’s also considering likely value, benefit in terms of P&S as well. Hope it doesn’t come to that of course!
Are you mad? He's the last player I'd sell!
Nope just my opinion, but if I combine the P&S benefit and his relative importance to the team there are others I’d rather lose less. Just to be clear I hope we keep him, I think he’s got great potential.
Post by: VillaTim on March 01, 2024, 10:49:28 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 01, 2024, 10:57:51 AM
Post by: Monty on March 01, 2024, 10:58:26 AM
Post by: sid1964 on March 01, 2024, 11:03:17 AM
Hopefully all is good, and in the summer we can add a couple of players to improve the team.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 01, 2024, 11:07:52 AM
Our final league position will determine our transfer activity.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 01, 2024, 11:13:20 AM
I'd sell him before Martinez, Luiz, Torres and Ollie. Probably McGinn & Kamara too.Also, and I hope this doesn’t come to pass, I rate JJ and think he’s great (completely proved me wrong in my initial view on him) but if push came to shove I count 6 (off the top of my head) players I’d rather keep. That’s also considering likely value, benefit in terms of P&S as well. Hope it doesn’t come to that of course!
Are you mad? He's the last player I'd sell!
Obviously I'd prefer to keep him as he may turn out to be superb for us, but so far he's not been consistent enough for long enough for me to want to retain him over any of that lot.
Post by: dekko on March 01, 2024, 11:20:29 AM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
Thats my view on it too.
I don't think the evidence we have available points to some kind of financial crisis, but at the same time we've been spending decent money on transfer fees and wages for a number of years now, and not bringing in vast amounts aside from Grealish. I'd be very surprised if we don't make 1 major sale this summer, and my money is on it being (my favourite player) Doug.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 01, 2024, 11:20:48 AM
Would be unlike The Athletic not to be spot on.
As you keep on mentioning this, it is one reporter who is not normally AV news, and the Atlantic's other reporter who mainly deals with Villa also mentioned he might not be right. So if the Atlantic is always wrong, and the reporters have said yes and no........
Post by: OCD on March 01, 2024, 11:24:24 AM
I hope we don't need to sell anyone that we don't want to, but if we had to, presumably we could get best part of £100m for Dougie. That could solve any issue for the next few seasons, and I would hope that we would be able to find an adequate replacement for that, and one or two more to make the overall team better.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 11:25:21 AM
Post by: VillaTim on March 01, 2024, 11:32:48 AM
i dent see the point in worrying about the summer until we complete the season.the accounts will be out in the next week so we'll have a better idea then
Our final league position will determine our transfer activity.
Post by: paul_e on March 01, 2024, 11:38:43 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 01, 2024, 11:44:01 AM
I still am confused by the June point, a sale can be agreed but can’t go through until July can it? How would we be selling by June anyway?
Last year the window opened June 14th, so guessing it will open mid-month again.
I'm assuming that the window covers the registration of new players anyway, so the finances of the transaction can be done in a different month to a registration change?
Post by: chrisw1 on March 01, 2024, 11:44:35 AM
Taking age and potential into account I think there's only Luiz, Torres and Kamara I'd choose to keep over Ramsey. We have a lot of very good players int he squad right now but a fair few of them are in, or close to, their 30s now so I'd not want to sell any of the younger players if we can hlep it, they'll need to be at the heart of a new first 11 in a few years so we'd just be creating problems for us down the line.Don't forget Martinez could easily have another 5 or 6 years in him.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 01, 2024, 11:45:50 AM
Post by: paul_e on March 01, 2024, 11:52:15 AM
Taking age and potential into account I think there's only Luiz, Torres and Kamara I'd choose to keep over Ramsey. We have a lot of very good players int he squad right now but a fair few of them are in, or close to, their 30s now so I'd not want to sell any of the younger players if we can hlep it, they'll need to be at the heart of a new first 11 in a few years so we'd just be creating problems for us down the line.Don't forget Martinez could easily have another 5 or 6 years in him.
I didn't, he's high on the list but I think those 4 could be a big part of a top 4 squad for most of the next decade.
Post by: Rigadon on March 01, 2024, 11:56:35 AM
i dent see the point in worrying about the summer until we complete the season.
Our final league position will determine our transfer activity.
Agree. Make the CL and we're FAR likelier to keep all the players we want to keep and add some one or two. Think it also depends quite a lot on what happens to Man City, as I can definitely see them trying to buy Luiz.
Post by: VillaTim on March 01, 2024, 12:11:08 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 01, 2024, 12:13:44 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
Thats my view on it too.
I don't think the evidence we have available points to some kind of financial crisis, but at the same time we've been spending decent money on transfer fees and wages for a number of years now, and not bringing in vast amounts aside from Grealish. I'd be very surprised if we don't make 1 major sale this summer, and my money is on it being (my favourite player) Doug.
I think you’re probably right but in the last two years or so we’ve sold Ramsey, Archer, Philogene, and Chuk.
That’s 60m and all homegrown.
We’ve also clawed back, somehow, 15m of Danny Ings money. We’ve done a lot more than most clubs, and the four homegrown sales are extremely valuable.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 01, 2024, 12:15:27 PM
Post by: dekko on March 01, 2024, 12:16:20 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 01, 2024, 12:26:05 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
Thats my view on it too.
I don't think the evidence we have available points to some kind of financial crisis, but at the same time we've been spending decent money on transfer fees and wages for a number of years now, and not bringing in vast amounts aside from Grealish. I'd be very surprised if we don't make 1 major sale this summer, and my money is on it being (my favourite player) Doug.
I think you’re probably right but in the last two years or so we’ve sold Ramsey, Archer, Philogene, and Chuk.
That’s 60m and all homegrown.
We’ve also clawed back, somehow, 15m of Danny Ings money. We’ve done a lot more than most clubs, and the four homegrown sales are extremely valuable.
Go back another year and academy has gained us a lot more than that and lines up pretty well agianst the likes of Man City and Chelsea who have made their business model around hoovering up all the talent they can and then selling most of them for as much as they can.
Post by: dekko on March 01, 2024, 12:30:25 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
Thats my view on it too.
I don't think the evidence we have available points to some kind of financial crisis, but at the same time we've been spending decent money on transfer fees and wages for a number of years now, and not bringing in vast amounts aside from Grealish. I'd be very surprised if we don't make 1 major sale this summer, and my money is on it being (my favourite player) Doug.
I think you’re probably right but in the last two years or so we’ve sold Ramsey, Archer, Philogene, and Chuk.
That’s 60m and all homegrown.
We’ve also clawed back, somehow, 15m of Danny Ings money. We’ve done a lot more than most clubs, and the four homegrown sales are extremely valuable.
Go back another year and academy has gained us a lot more than that and lines up pretty well agianst the likes of Man City and Chelsea who have made their business model around hoovering up all the talent they can and then selling most of them for as much as they can.
This is true.
I suppose my main concern is that there have been a lot of reports over the last few years (from some of the better journos) about how we have started paying pretty good wages for a team not currently in the CL. The question is how much has our wage bill ballooned and how far do those sales go in covering it.
I guess we'll find out when the accounts are released.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 12:31:06 PM
I'd sell him before Martinez, Luiz, Torres and Ollie. Probably McGinn & Kamara too.Also, and I hope this doesn’t come to pass, I rate JJ and think he’s great (completely proved me wrong in my initial view on him) but if push came to shove I count 6 (off the top of my head) players I’d rather keep. That’s also considering likely value, benefit in terms of P&S as well. Hope it doesn’t come to that of course!
Are you mad? He's the last player I'd sell!
Obviously I'd prefer to keep him as he may turn out to be superb for us, but so far he's not been consistent enough for long enough for me to want to retain him over any of that lot.
I’d be adding Bailey in there too.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 12:32:56 PM
Selling Martinez would constitute achieving an abysmal money raised to impact on team ratio.
Yep, unless he was to down tools (which I can’t see) then selling Emi is just utterly pointless. We will not be able to replace him adequately, and the fee we’d receive wouldn’t be astronomical.
Post by: lovejoy on March 01, 2024, 12:38:49 PM
Selling Martinez would constitute achieving an abysmal money raised to impact on team ratio.
Carlos should be on the sale list whilst he still has a bit of residual value
We signed him on a 4 year deal for £20+ million 2 years ago so hes on the books at in excess of £10m. Anything below that would mean a loss. I can't se us getting enough proceeds for a 31 year old injury prone defender to justify a sale.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 01, 2024, 12:51:43 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
And Newcastle are in exactly the same situation as we are regarding FFP restrictions.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 01, 2024, 02:08:34 PM
I could east see a £90m+Add Ons. Although not if there is a release clause.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 01, 2024, 04:13:54 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
He said we MUST SELL by the end of June.
Post by: VillaTim on March 01, 2024, 04:34:53 PM
yep, be difficult to shift him without a huge financial lossSelling Martinez would constitute achieving an abysmal money raised to impact on team ratio.Carlos should be on the sale list whilst he still has a bit of residual value
We signed him on a 4 year deal for £20+ million 2 years ago so hes on the books at in excess of £10m. Anything below that would mean a loss. I can't se us getting enough proceeds for a 31 year old injury prone defender to justify a sale.
Post by: taylorsworkrate on March 01, 2024, 04:37:41 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 01, 2024, 04:49:19 PM
Surely a lot of these FFP predictions change if we secure CL football?
Not for this season they don’t though.
Post by: Beard82 on March 01, 2024, 04:53:07 PM
I see it more as whether selling a prize asset will leave us in a stronger position with the players it means we’re able to buy
Post by: Monty on March 01, 2024, 05:09:53 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
He said we MUST SELL by the end of June.
Did he? I subscribe to The Athletic and everything and I don't remember him saying that. Perfectly possible I missed it, of course.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 01, 2024, 05:10:22 PM
My reading is we would sell to buy - I can’t see a fire sale
I see it more as whether selling a prize asset will leave us in a stronger position with the players it means we’re able to buy
It’s not going to be about sell to buy if it’s a loss we’re trying to cover, at least not directly.
Post by: Rory on March 01, 2024, 05:13:19 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
He said we MUST SELL by the end of June.
Did he? I subscribe to The Athletic and everything and I don't remember him saying that. Perfectly possible I missed it, of course.
Morse wouldn't have missed that 😉
Post by: olaftab on March 01, 2024, 05:16:04 PM
He said we MUST SELL by the end of June.Well that's load of bollocks as there is no mechanism within the football market to do that.
Post by: Monty on March 01, 2024, 05:19:55 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
He said we MUST SELL by the end of June.
Did he? I subscribe to The Athletic and everything and I don't remember him saying that. Perfectly possible I missed it, of course.
Morse wouldn't have missed that 😉
I think, sadly, in the end the only thing Morse and I share is that we both like 'Parsifal'.
Post by: VillaTim on March 01, 2024, 05:23:49 PM
But its The Athletic , they don't get things wrongHe said we MUST SELL by the end of June.Well that's load of bollocks as there is no mechanism within the football market to do that.
Post by: Dave on March 01, 2024, 09:30:50 PM
If we are being honest the one we would get huge bucks for is Luiz. His age, nationality and the fact he would probably improve most the 10-12 teams in Europe (including EPL) who are actually better than us.
My gut feeling is that if we do need to sell someone for £50-100m to keep the books ticking over it might actually be Bailey.
His stock is probably never going to be higher than it is right now, he plays in a style and position that rich clubs always are interested in signing, he's the ideal age and it's not impossible that he's just having an Amr Zaki / Roque Santa Cruz season.
Then Emery just turns Diaby into the new Bailey next year.
Post by: Richard E on March 01, 2024, 09:37:53 PM
Post by: Malandro on March 01, 2024, 09:42:11 PM
If we had to sell someone I’d be tempted to say Martinez, purely from the point of view it’s generally easier to get a half decent keeper than to eg replace a top class striker.
I have nightmares about the goalies we had before Emi.
I’d flog Watkins first.
Post by: Dave on March 01, 2024, 09:42:57 PM
If we had to sell someone I’d be tempted to say Martinez, purely from the point of view it’s generally easier to get a half decent keeper than to eg replace a top class striker.
But like last year, where to? I still don't see anyone who is able to pay us the £70-80m to make it worth our while, needing or wanting to spend that on a 31 year old keeper.
Post by: LeeB on March 01, 2024, 09:44:20 PM
Post by: VillaTim on March 01, 2024, 09:49:47 PM
If we had to sell someone I’d be tempted to say Martinez, purely from the point of view it’s generally easier to get a half decent keeper than to eg replace a top class striker.Martinez would be last on my list to sell.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 01, 2024, 10:17:46 PM
If we had to sell someone I’d be tempted to say Martinez, purely from the point of view it’s generally easier to get a half decent keeper than to eg replace a top class striker.
I have nightmares about the goalies we had before Emi.
I’d flog Watkins first.
Not for me. He’s one who we’d have to spend the entire incoming fee to adequately replace I reckon.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 01, 2024, 10:25:14 PM
Honestly, I think there was a lot of interpreting of what Ornstein said. All he said was that clubs are under more FFP pressure than before, and that other teams were interested in Ramsey. I don't know how either of these facts add up to 'ORNSTEIN PREDICTS VILLA FIRE SALE', or 'NEWCASTLE IN RAMSEY SWOOP' or whatever.
He said we MUST SELL by the end of June.
Did he? I subscribe to The Athletic and everything and I don't remember him saying that. Perfectly possible I missed it, of course.
Yes, he said it in a now deleted tweet, which in itself is pretty damning.
Post by: Malandro on March 01, 2024, 10:28:52 PM
If we had to sell someone I’d be tempted to say Martinez, purely from the point of view it’s generally easier to get a half decent keeper than to eg replace a top class striker.
I have nightmares about the goalies we had before Emi.
I’d flog Watkins first.
Not for me. He’s one who we’d have to spend the entire incoming fee to adequately replace I reckon.
Probably right. He does suit the tactics perfectly.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 01, 2024, 10:38:02 PM
If we had to sell someone I’d be tempted to say Martinez, purely from the point of view it’s generally easier to get a half decent keeper than to eg replace a top class striker.
I have nightmares about the goalies we had before Emi.
I’d flog Watkins first.
Not for me. He’s one who we’d have to spend the entire incoming fee to adequately replace I reckon.
Probably right. He does suit the tactics perfectly.
If we simply HAVE to sell, I’d go Digne, Cash, Sanson, Dendonker, Duran (young replacements already in situ?). And send back Zaniolo. If we could offload Coutinho that would slash the wage bill surely with no-one conning in, plus a tidy bit in fees.
Although I do think we’ll get somebody more experienced than Tim to cover Bouba’s injury.
Post by: DB on March 01, 2024, 11:14:09 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 02, 2024, 01:40:46 AM
Taking age and potential into account I think there's only Luiz, Torres and Kamara I'd choose to keep over Ramsey. We have a lot of very good players int he squad right now but a fair few of them are in, or close to, their 30s now so I'd not want to sell any of the younger players if we can hlep it, they'll need to be at the heart of a new first 11 in a few years so we'd just be creating problems for us down the line.
Pains me thar we are even having to have this conversation at a time when we should be looking at building the squad further.
I really wouldn't want to sell Ramsey, for as this season has shown, he plays a role which is very difficult to replace. If it came down to it, I would probably sell Kamara or Luiz before Ramsey, as central midfielders woukd be easier to replace.
Post by: Proposition Joe on March 02, 2024, 05:18:20 PM
Alternatively, what's the betting on us getting hit with a points deduction in May that is exactly enough for Manure to overhaul us, assuming we finish above them.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 02, 2024, 06:27:31 PM
Taking age and potential into account I think there's only Luiz, Torres and Kamara I'd choose to keep over Ramsey. We have a lot of very good players int he squad right now but a fair few of them are in, or close to, their 30s now so I'd not want to sell any of the younger players if we can hlep it, they'll need to be at the heart of a new first 11 in a few years so we'd just be creating problems for us down the line.
Pains me thar we are even having to have this conversation at a time when we should be looking at building the squad further.
I really wouldn't want to sell Ramsey, for as this season has shown, he plays a role which is very difficult to replace. If it came down to it, I would probably sell Kamara or Luiz before Ramsey, as central midfielders woukd be easier to replace.
Kamara maybe. But luiz? No chance
One of the biggest key players we have
Post by: Drummond on March 04, 2024, 11:27:38 AM
We may be in a position where we need to sell to buy, and if that's the case, you'd also expect us to need to sell for more than we buy for (due to the potential losses and how tight things are).
There are some players I just think we shouldn't be looking to sell regardless and they'd be:
Martinez
Konsa
Torres
Kamara
Watkins
Ramsey
(Very) close behind are:
Luiz
McGinn
Bailey
Mings
Buendia
Other than that, whilst I'd rather not lose players, Moreno, Digne, Tielemans, Cash, spring to mind, I'd still think they were saleable (though only one of the LBs).
We've got a bunch of players that are already likely to go:
Coutinho
Dendoncker
Chambers
Zaniolo (end of loan)
Lenglet (end of loan)
Then there's players who we'd probably not be gutted about going:
Duran
Carlos
Obviously the squad is strengthened with Mings, Buendia and Kamara to return at some point.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 04, 2024, 11:47:41 AM
We may well need to sell a big player to allow us room to keep building, but I'd be amazed if we had got ourselves in a position where we need a forced sale this financial year.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 04, 2024, 11:52:30 AM
Above list.
Definitely keep;
Martinez
Konsa
Torres
Kamara
Watkins
Ramsey
Douglas Luiz
Bailey
(Very) close behind are:
McGinn
Mings
Potentially saleable;
Moreno
Digne
Cash
Buendia
Likely to go;
Coutinho
Dendoncker
Chambers
Zaniolo (end of loan)
Lenglet (end of loan)
Not concerned if gone;
Duran
Carlos
Post by: Dogtanian on March 04, 2024, 11:56:09 AM
It's interesting that the paperwork for extending the current financial year to the end of June was only filed after the January window had closed.
Post by: paul_e on March 04, 2024, 11:56:12 AM
Definitely keep;
Martinez
Konsa
Torres
Kamara
Watkins
Ramsey
Douglas Luiz
Bailey
(Very) close behind are:
McGinn
Mings
Potentially saleable;
Moreno
Digne
Cash
Buendia
Likely to go;
Coutinho
Dendoncker
Chambers
Zaniolo (end of loan)
Lenglet (end of loan)
Not concerned if gone;
Duran
Carlos
I mostly agree on this but I think it's a bit unfair on Duran who I think could become a very good player and is younger than players that aren't even listed because they're 'one for the future'.
Post by: Risso on March 04, 2024, 11:57:36 AM
Accounts are overdue according to Companies House.
It's interesting that the paperwork for extending the current financial year to the end of June was only filed after the January window had closed.
The accounts aren't actually overdue, it just takes Companies House a few days to make them visible after they're uploaded by the company. And yes, from this year we've made the accounting end date the same as the season, ie end of June rather than 31 May.
Post by: LeeB on March 04, 2024, 12:02:01 PM
Accounts are overdue according to Companies House.
It's interesting that the paperwork for extending the current financial year to the end of June was only filed after the January window had closed.
The accounts aren't actually overdue, it just takes Companies House a few days to make them visible after they're uploaded by the company. And yes, from this year we've made the accounting end date the same as the season, ie end of June rather than 31 May.
If the length of time they've taken to remove me as a director of a scam company I have nothing to do with is any indicator we'll be waiting a good deal longer.
Post by: VillaTim on March 04, 2024, 12:09:26 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 04, 2024, 12:10:32 PM
I mostly agree on this but I think it's a bit unfair on Duran who I think could become a very good player and is younger than players that aren't even listed because they're 'one for the future'.
Fair point. Maybe a loan for him instead.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 04, 2024, 12:12:53 PM
Are the accounts out this week ?
Should be.
Post by: gpbarr on March 04, 2024, 02:56:31 PM
I'm sure we're close to FFP limits but I can't believe we would have signed Rogers and the young right back if there was any chance of us going over the threshold. It just doesn't stack up to me.
We may well need to sell a big player to allow us room to keep building, but I'd be amazed if we had got ourselves in a position where we need a forced sale this financial year.
Or a points deduction that strips us of a CL place
Post by: Dogtanian on March 04, 2024, 02:59:55 PM
I'm sure we're close to FFP limits but I can't believe we would have signed Rogers and the young right back if there was any chance of us going over the threshold. It just doesn't stack up to me.
We may well need to sell a big player to allow us room to keep building, but I'd be amazed if we had got ourselves in a position where we need a forced sale this financial year.
Or a points deduction that strips us of a CL place
You're already worried about next season's champions league fight when we are still in the midst of this one? That's looking ahead!
Post by: lovejoy on March 04, 2024, 03:57:25 PM
Post by: Risso on March 04, 2024, 04:00:03 PM
Does the extension of the year end to June mean we get an extra month to file the 2023 accounts?
No. They'll appear on Companies House this week.
Post by: lovejoy on March 04, 2024, 04:03:21 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 04, 2024, 04:05:35 PM
I think there is a trick where you can shorten the year end and get yourself an extra three months.
Pretty sure you're not allowed to change your financial year end when the accounts are due to be filed.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 04, 2024, 04:28:14 PM
If it was down to selling JJ or luiz for me would be JJ every day of the week. Luiz should be kept at all costs
Post by: Yeltzer on March 04, 2024, 04:37:06 PM
I think there is a trick where you can shorten the year end and get yourself an extra three months.
Pretty sure you're not allowed to change your financial year end when the accounts are due to be filed.
If they’re already overdue, you can’t shorten the year end to get the extra 3 months
Post by: DB on March 04, 2024, 07:07:16 PM
https://x.com/mjmarr_star/status/1764728201740186108?s=61&t=xJ3Qpfj5c0SMrRQDwdeZJg
Post by: aev on March 04, 2024, 07:11:54 PM
Ornstein not too wide of the mark.
Post by: Ads on March 04, 2024, 07:12:39 PM
Post by: Nev on March 04, 2024, 07:14:50 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 04, 2024, 07:22:05 PM
Post by: DB on March 04, 2024, 07:22:50 PM
Post by: dekko on March 04, 2024, 07:26:01 PM
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2024/march/04/aston-villa-end-of-year-accounts/
Quote
Aston Villa’s published accounts for the year ended 31st May 2023 show that the Club has made significant progress against their stated focus of consolidation and improvement.
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 7th placed finish in the Premier League. This represents our best performance since 2009/10 and ensured that European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade.
That upward trajectory has continued into the 2023/24 campaign, with the team currently occupying a Champions League qualifying position in the Premier League, while there is also knock-out stage football to look forward to in the UEFA Europa Conference League having topped the group during the initial phase of the competition.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion. During this financial year, the Club has invested a further £63.7m in the acquisition of new players whilst also generating a profit of over £22m from player sales. This investment is part of the reason why employee wage costs rose to £194.2m (up from £137m) although there were also increases in central support functions to support the growth of the Club which resulted in a 9% increase in overall employee numbers. The amortisation of player contracts also increased by £10m to £92.5m reflecting the increased investment in playing staff.
Aston Villa Women also enjoyed a memorable campaign in 2022/23, recording their highest-ever league finish in the Women’s Super League and reaching the semi-final of the Women’s FA Cup. There was also individual recognition for Rachel Daly, who was awarded the WSL Golden Boot for her 22 league goals last season.
The Club are delighted that Villa Park has been confirmed as a host venue for Euro 2028 and as such we have continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment almost doubling at £13.4m (£7.1m last year). Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
We are also endeavouring to enhance the match day experience for our fans by improving existing facilities across the stadium and its footprint, creating new hospitality offerings and integrating new sponsorship assets. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
At Brookvale, in the shadow of Villa Park, the Club opened its new inner-city academy for boys and girls which provides state-of-the-art facilities for the men’s and women’s Academies and the Foundation in the heart of the community in Aston.
Since it opened its doors for the first time in August 2023, the Foundation have recorded more than 20,000 visits while the Academy also host their Early Years Elite Programmes at the Brookvale site.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year to £217.7m, up from £178.4m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 7th in the Premier League versus a 14th place finish in the prior year, but there were also improvements in gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial revenues.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £119.6m after tax. This compares with a small profit of £0.3m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Hopefully we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules means that we dont have to sell
Post by: aev on March 04, 2024, 07:29:38 PM
You perform miracles on the pitch (like NU last season) but you simply struggle to compete with the revenues the others generate.
I think we need a new stadium.
Post by: Beard82 on March 04, 2024, 07:32:58 PM
Coutinho, Olsen, Dendoker and even Chambers brain dead decisions in hindsight.
I think Luiz will go in the summer unfortunately - unless the PL suddenly admit this whole FFP is a farce and stop it or we unless Heck and co some loophole. It's a real shame that the odds are so stacked in the sky 6 teams favour despite them having 2bn of combine debts.
Luiz is the obvious one - Kamara is crocked and I don't think Ramsey is at peak value. Emi just wouldn't generate enough money to make it worth selling him, and I don't think Watkins is replaceable. I guess Cash, and possibly Bailey might be worth something, and Digne.
I know I would much rather earn 25k a year and have no mortgage, then earn 50k a year with a million pound mortgage. Funny definition of wealth that is anything but.
I still think the management will have a clear plan that will minimise the impact this has.
Post by: Villan82 on March 04, 2024, 07:33:31 PM
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 04, 2024, 07:34:28 PM
You perform miracles on the pitch (like NU last season) but you simply struggle to compete with the revenues the others generate.
I think we need a new stadium.
I'd rather a 6 point deduction.
Post by: aev on March 04, 2024, 07:37:01 PM
What does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
Well they looked at that and decided against it….
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 07:37:40 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:40:18 PM
How is that fair play?
Also
Quote
The Club are delighted that Villa Park has been confirmed as a host venue for Euro 2028 and as such we have continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment almost doubling at £13.4m (£7.1m last year). Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
Said it before, say it again, mark my words *taps nose* this is all going to lead to a new stadium, almost certainly elsewhere.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:41:21 PM
If we don't want to sell, surely there's an option to just not buy. I know transfers get a lot of attention, and the likes of Harry Redknapp will tell you they're essential (and in great depth and variety), but are they? For one window, isn't it better to stick with a squad that's done well?
I think that might be the plan to a degree, but I also think this basically necessitates selling Luiz.
Similarly to how Newcastle are probably going to have to sell Guimaraes for the same reason.
Honestly, what a fucking shit system.
Post by: Baldy on March 04, 2024, 07:41:42 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 07:41:49 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:42:21 PM
What does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Carte blanche to build the whole thing from the ground up, and have a Spurs-esque situation rather than a Chelsea one, except without all the rich people.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:43:08 PM
Greg(g) Evans said a few months ago this was going to happen. He took serious stick for it.
Yeah, but basically, it's the g situation with him. Casts everything he says in a shadow of disbelief.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 07:43:43 PM
If we don't want to sell, surely there's an option to just not buy. I know transfers get a lot of attention, and the likes of Harry Redknapp will tell you they're essential (and in great depth and variety), but are they? For one window, isn't it better to stick with a squad that's done well?
I think that might be the plan to a degree, but I also think this basically necessitates selling Luiz.
Why? If he's happy and we're happy, what's the problem? If he wants to go, that's different. It would be decision made and money to spend.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 04, 2024, 07:47:05 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:52:22 PM
If we don't want to sell, surely there's an option to just not buy. I know transfers get a lot of attention, and the likes of Harry Redknapp will tell you they're essential (and in great depth and variety), but are they? For one window, isn't it better to stick with a squad that's done well?
I think that might be the plan to a degree, but I also think this basically necessitates selling Luiz.
Why? If he's happy and we're happy, what's the problem? If he wants to go, that's different. It would be decision made and money to spend.
Because we are going to have to find the money from selling one of our best players, and not just so we can spend in the summer, but to bolster the three year running total.
I think he's fully ammortised* as he's been here a while so he'd have just as much FFP impact as, say, Jacob Ramsey would.
* hate having to even think about this shit.
Post by: paul_e on March 04, 2024, 07:54:19 PM
Can anyone guess how much of the £120m counts against the FFP rules once the non-qualifying expenditure is knocked off?
There's a Tweet from Maher that says ~£56m in covid related costs and then the club statement mentions ~£13m in infrastructure investment so potentially around £69-70m
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 07:55:10 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:56:31 PM
West Ham have a nice big, free ground. Newcastle have a ground 25% larger than ours. Everton are about to move into a brand new ground which is 14k larger than ours, and will doubtless have nice spangly, extensive new hospitality functions. Spurs have already got theirs.
I just don't see how we're ever going to be able to stay competitive financially - now that the owners can't just spunk the money into the club whenever they feel like it - without massively upgrading our core asset, the stadium.
Genuinely, one for Risso or other financial types, but how on earth can we hope to do it?
Yeah, new shirts deal, maybe CL next season, but even that could only amount to a handful of matches. So how do we do it?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 07:57:34 PM
I know all that, but some big, big clubs (I don't mean Arsenal) will be in for him in the summer anyway and he may well push to go regardless.
That's true.
Although they now know that we've got to sell.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 07:59:13 PM
I know all that, but some big, big clubs (I don't mean Arsenal) will be in for him in the summer anyway and he may well push to go regardless.
That's true.
Although they now know that we've got to sell.
Only if we've got to buy!
Edit: for clarity, I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.
Post by: aev on March 04, 2024, 08:00:52 PM
What I don't get, is how we can possibly afford not to rebuild the North Stand to remain viably competitive with our peer group?
West Ham have a nice big, free ground. Newcastle have a ground 25% larger than ours. Everton are about to move into a brand new ground which is 14k larger than ours, and will doubtless have nice spangly, extensive new hospitality functions. Spurs have already got theirs.
I just don't see how we're ever going to be able to stay competitive financially - now that the owners can't just spunk the money into the club whenever they feel like it - without massively upgrading our core asset, the stadium.
Genuinely, one for Risso or other financial types, but how on earth can we hope to do it?
Yeah, new shirts deal, maybe CL next season, but even that could only amount to a handful of matches. So how do we do it?
I don’t think we can.
There has to be a reason we have got 100m in - either they are simply some taking some money out and diluting their holding or we have got investment in for a specific reason.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 04, 2024, 08:01:47 PM
I still think the management will have a clear plan that will minimise the impact this has.
Agreed.
Keep Calm and Carry On Amortising.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 08:03:24 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 04, 2024, 08:09:22 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 08:09:41 PM
I know all that, but some big, big clubs (I don't mean Arsenal) will be in for him in the summer anyway and he may well push to go regardless.
That's true.
Although they now know that we've got to sell.
Only if we've got to buy!
Edit: for clarity, I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.
The only if we have to buy thing, that's exactly what I mean - it is a rolling three year figure we have to manage, we may have to sell to stay compliant, even without buying new players.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 04, 2024, 08:15:56 PM
Post by: Smirker on March 04, 2024, 08:17:22 PM
As I said before I'm no expert in this so I'll just ask those who are are we fucked?
Post by: Monty on March 04, 2024, 08:18:02 PM
Post by: Gareth on March 04, 2024, 08:24:12 PM
I'd be an awful lot more comfortable right now if I knew the new stand was on the way as planned and the original 'Villa Live project'. I'd see that there was a concrete plan on the horizon that would help us make more revenue and I know a lot of Villa fans would like to spend more at the stadium but because of the current set up spend it in the city centre before traveling to the stadium
From an FFP/PSR (& wanting something new and shiny) perspective absolutely but at the end of the day it has to be paid for and they have to be sure they’ll fill it and maximise the revenues. If I was being hard nosed I’d say tomorrow would be a good day to announce the big season ticket rice rises that will inevitably follow…. :-(
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 04, 2024, 08:24:34 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 08:24:43 PM
I, er...I blame Gerrard.
This is a popular sentiment in the Ealing чифлик.
Post by: brontebilly on March 04, 2024, 08:32:14 PM
What does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
You would like to think management have a plan but then you see Chris Heck's efforts since he joined us and you would really have to wonder. Does CL qualification strengthen the club's case for the council to follow through with badly needed investment in public transport nearby or a new stadium site? Do the local council really care?
To think we could qualify for the CL this season and maybe a European trophy and still have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey to balance the books. What's the point then really ...we will be hard pressed to keep Emery not to mind some key players if that's the case.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 04, 2024, 08:33:47 PM
Surely if we get CL then we may not need to sell as we can make some money from that? If we had to sell for me it would be digne and cash.
Post by: Risso on March 04, 2024, 08:40:38 PM
What I don't get, is how we can possibly afford not to rebuild the North Stand to remain viably competitive with our peer group?
West Ham have a nice big, free ground. Newcastle have a ground 25% larger than ours. Everton are about to move into a brand new ground which is 14k larger than ours, and will doubtless have nice spangly, extensive new hospitality functions. Spurs have already got theirs.
I just don't see how we're ever going to be able to stay competitive financially - now that the owners can't just spunk the money into the club whenever they feel like it - without massively upgrading our core asset, the stadium.
Genuinely, one for Risso or other financial types, but how on earth can we hope to do it?
Yeah, new shirts deal, maybe CL next season, but even that could only amount to a handful of matches. So how do we do it?
God knows.
Obviously the sale of one star player will wipe out a lot of the losses, so if we see an Emi/Luiz/Ramsey go for £75m+, then that's going to put us back on an even footing. But even if they have to grudgingly do that, then I'd have thought you want the increased income from a bigger, better stadium on top of that as well. The other thing is, every other club seems a bit reticent to spend huge amounts now, so selling a better player may be harder than we think in the summer.
Otherwise, we're pretty well going to be dependent on Emery performing miracles every year, and hoping we can sell 2-3 of the promising kids.
I absolutely get the argument about building a new stadium, and if it was in the right location I wouldn't be averse to it at all. But it's going to take a minimum of 8 years, and in that time our income is going to be left behind.
Heck is obviously going to get as much income as he can out of what we've got already, so it's pretty certain we'll get:
- Big price hikes across the board
- More areas being turned into corporate or GA+, eg more of the Trinity turned into full corporate as there's still lots of space inside they can utilise for more seating
- GA+ Marquees in the car parks a la Leeds
- Trying to squeeze a few more seats in where they can
But then we'll still be left with two stands that are nowhere near good enough, and where people can't get served.
Heck could have carried on with the plans, or even made them better, THEN tried to extort as much money out of 50,000+ fans, rather than 42,000. It's baffling, it really is.
Post by: lovejoy on March 04, 2024, 08:44:51 PM
Post by: aev on March 04, 2024, 08:46:28 PM
Post by: Risso on March 04, 2024, 08:48:28 PM
Post by: itbrvilla on March 04, 2024, 08:49:29 PM
The wage bill went up over £1m a week. Bloody hell.Wow! That's nuts
Post by: john2710 on March 04, 2024, 08:50:35 PM
If we choose to sell one of our top players, I'm sure we'll have a ready made replacement lined up. We'll be able to attract players who would have been out of reach previously.
After the first game of the season when were without Mings, Buendia, Ramsey & Moreno, I thought our season was as good as over. If one of our top players is sold, we'll spend it much better than we did the Grealish money & be stronger for it.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 08:52:44 PM
Post by: Monty on March 04, 2024, 08:52:53 PM
The club must have planned for this, it's not like it will come as a surprise to them. The rules haven't suddenly changed & we've been caught out. The press will make dramatic statements like fire sales & Champions League qualification or financial meltdown but I have every confidence the club know exactly what they are doing.
Honestly? I'm not sure Heck has earned anything like that. Nor did Purslow.
Post by: aev on March 04, 2024, 08:54:24 PM
The wage bill went up over £1m a week. Bloody hell.Wow! That's nuts
“Central support functions”
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 04, 2024, 08:54:50 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2024, 09:03:31 PM
Been listening to a lot of Simon Jordan. I think that's correct, isn't it?
Post by: Gareth on March 04, 2024, 09:05:46 PM
Post by: Forge10 on March 04, 2024, 09:07:25 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 09:12:00 PM
But what that really means, is to me, a closed book.
Post by: BC54 VFC on March 04, 2024, 09:13:22 PM
The wage bill went up over £1m a week. Bloody hell.Which is pretty well what the UEFA 'The European Club Finance and Investment Landscape' document (Page 29) inferred, stating an increase of EUR61m, which at the current spot rate of 1.1686 is GBP52.2m.
Post by: paul_e on March 04, 2024, 09:15:25 PM
Its no longer speculation, its on the Club website, we lost nearly £120m in year ending May 23. The journalists over the last few months were correct.
But what that really means, is to me, a closed book.
I don't think anyone has been disputing that, the bit people disagreed with was that we'd need to sell people before the end of June.
Post by: Forge10 on March 04, 2024, 09:19:00 PM
Its no longer speculation, its on the Club website, we lost nearly £120m in year ending May 23. The journalists over the last few months were correct.
But what that really means, is to me, a closed book.
I don't think anyone has been disputing that, the bit people disagreed with was that we'd need to sell people before the end of June.
Yes sorry that’s what I meant. Does this mean the damage is irreversible and selling players is the only option? It would be interesting to know what the thinking was if they knew the rules….
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 09:19:32 PM
Post by: Forge10 on March 04, 2024, 09:20:31 PM
Post by: Forge10 on March 04, 2024, 09:25:24 PM
I'm sure neither of us has the inclination to go and check but there were plenty of people saying a mix of 'we cant have lost that much' 'the owners wouldn't have done XYZ if we'd lost that much' etc, etc. It looks like we did.
Oh, well that was a bit silly then. I guess it’s a case of selling Watkins and Luiz and picking up some better value players to try to compete. Maybe a break away Super League would be best for everyone if there really is little chance of competing with the clubs who can generate more revenue?
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 04, 2024, 09:27:52 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 04, 2024, 09:28:44 PM
Oh, well that was a bit silly then. I guess it’s a case of selling Watkins and Luiz and picking up some better value players to try to compete. Maybe a break away Super League would be best for everyone if there really is little chance of competing with the clubs who can generate more revenue?
Please stop overreacting and posting ill-informed speculation.
Post by: BC54 VFC on March 04, 2024, 09:29:32 PM
I think you're panicking unnecessarily.I'm sure neither of us has the inclination to go and check but there were plenty of people saying a mix of 'we cant have lost that much' 'the owners wouldn't have done XYZ if we'd lost that much' etc, etc. It looks like we did.
Oh, well that was a bit silly then. I guess it’s a case of selling Watkins and Luiz and picking up some better value players to try to compete. Maybe a break away Super League would be best for everyone if there really is little chance of competing with the clubs who can generate more revenue?
Post by: BC54 VFC on March 04, 2024, 09:30:05 PM
To follow this up is that why Everton and Forest were penalised because the last chance to change things was January by selling players?No.
Post by: Villan82 on March 04, 2024, 09:30:23 PM
He is one I could see Monchi/Emery replacing with a cheaper option from Spain if needs must.
Anyhow, just some out there thinking.
Post by: Forge10 on March 04, 2024, 09:30:51 PM
Oh, well that was a bit silly then. I guess it’s a case of selling Watkins and Luiz and picking up some better value players to try to compete. Maybe a break away Super League would be best for everyone if there really is little chance of competing with the clubs who can generate more revenue?
Please stop overreacting and posting ill-informed speculation.
Calm down mate, I’m only asking as I don’t know how all this works? There are some proper stroppy sods on here…. 😂
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 09:32:54 PM
If, and it still is a big 'if' at the moment, I am thinking it really is such a shame Kamara got injured. He is one I think we could cope without, would be pure profit, wasn't an Emery buy and I haven't got the affinity for him that I have for Luiz, Watkins, Bailey, Konsa, Martinez etc. Unless somebody would take a punt on him with the injury?!
Anyhow, just some out there thinking.
Unai has picked him whenever he's been available, I reckon he's our most important player these last two years but probably the one most likely to want to move on.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 04, 2024, 09:33:39 PM
Post by: john2710 on March 04, 2024, 09:34:51 PM
The club must have planned for this, it's not like it will come as a surprise to them. The rules haven't suddenly changed & we've been caught out. The press will make dramatic statements like fire sales & Champions League qualification or financial meltdown but I have every confidence the club know exactly what they are doing.
Honestly? I'm not sure Heck has earned anything like that. Nor did Purslow.
It's not just Purslow & Heck. Do you think this is new news to Sawiris & Edens? I've been around long enough to see us sell star players & come out better for it. You either trust people at the top of the club or you don't. After the last 5 years I think the owners & the manager have earned our trust.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 04, 2024, 09:35:59 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2024, 09:36:45 PM
Again all from the bits and bobs I have read.
Post by: BC54 VFC on March 04, 2024, 09:37:16 PM
I wouldnt be opposed to selling tielesman. Anything would be pure profit and u think he will ve around the 40-50m mark. Rather him than JJ or luizWe'd have to buy him first ;)
Post by: Villan82 on March 04, 2024, 09:39:52 PM
I wouldnt be opposed to selling tielesman. Anything would be pure profit and u think he will ve around the 40-50m mark. Rather him than JJ or luiz
What was I thinking?! Yes, that would be a better shout if we absolutely had to. Plus, if Buendia comes back even 3/4 the player he was we have a ready made replacement
And of course, I forgot about Duran. If Archer is coming back we could cash in on Duran?
One good thing, we have a quality squad. We could probably raise £50m from sales without damaging the mainstays of the squad.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 09:42:38 PM
Post by: Gareth on March 04, 2024, 09:43:52 PM
I'm not certain that even Chelsea would pay £50m for Youri.
Yup, 15 maybe…50 would be blatant money laundering :-)
Post by: Grande Pablo on March 04, 2024, 09:55:48 PM
I trust this as they state is part of the long term strategy & the spectre of FFP penalties is way off the mark.
Yes, VP expansion is going to have to be done by Nick Knowles & his trusted army of volunteers rather than what we were originally promised, but sustained success on the pitch has to take priority.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 04, 2024, 09:59:25 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2024, 10:00:42 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 04, 2024, 10:08:37 PM
These are May 23 numbers so you have to look at transfer expenditure since then,
It does loook like we will need to sell a player this summer but would still be able to enter the market in the summer as a new player only costs the transfer value divided by the number of years of the contract.
It’s not great but it’s not disastrous either when you consider we are even more revenue generative this season.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 04, 2024, 10:10:56 PM
If, and it still is a big 'if' at the moment, I am thinking it really is such a shame Kamara got injured. He is one I think we could cope without, would be pure profit, wasn't an Emery buy and I haven't got the affinity for him that I have for Luiz, Watkins, Bailey, Konsa, Martinez etc. Unless somebody would take a punt on him with the injury?!
Anyhow, just some out there thinking.
Unai has picked him whenever he's been available, I reckon he's our most important player these last two years but probably the one most likely to want to move on.
I think it's probably a case of the type of player that is easier to replace really. I think we've got a few players who are a bit unique in some ways and would be very difficult to.replace. Kamara is a quality defensive midfielder, but there are a lot of good players out there who can play that role.
Post by: astonvilla82 on March 04, 2024, 10:13:58 PM
I'm off to SHA to find out what this really means.Got migraine just reading the explanations
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 10:14:36 PM
The club aren't going to misrepresent the information with their 'expected' & 'on plan' statements - that would be pretty foolish.
I trust this as they state is part of the long term strategy & the spectre of FFP penalties is way off the mark.
Yes, VP expansion is going to have to be done by Nick Knowles & his trusted army of volunteers rather than what we were originally promised, but sustained success on the pitch has to take priority.
Ground investment money doesn’t come into the equation with FFP.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 10:16:27 PM
We made a loss of £120, allowable losses £105; so we will be compliant with allowable expenditure and profit bought forward.
These are May 23 numbers so you have to look at transfer expenditure since then,
It does loook like we will need to sell a player this summer but would still be able to enter the market in the summer as a new player only costs the transfer value divided by the number of years of the contract.
It’s not great but it’s not disastrous either when you consider we are even more revenue generative this season.
Allowable losses are 105m over three seasons. We’ve lost 120m in one, surely?
Post by: Brend'Watkins on March 04, 2024, 10:18:11 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2024, 10:20:43 PM
£120 over 2 seasons if you count the season before profits of £300,000....isn't it?We made a loss of £120, allowable losses £105; so we will be compliant with allowable expenditure and profit bought forward.
These are May 23 numbers so you have to look at transfer expenditure since then,
It does loook like we will need to sell a player this summer but would still be able to enter the market in the summer as a new player only costs the transfer value divided by the number of years of the contract.
It’s not great but it’s not disastrous either when you consider we are even more revenue generative this season.
Allowable losses are 105m over three seasons. We’ve lost 120m in one, surely?
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 10:21:24 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 04, 2024, 10:23:56 PM
The club aren't going to misrepresent the information with their 'expected' & 'on plan' statements - that would be pretty foolish.
I trust this as they state is part of the long term strategy & the spectre of FFP penalties is way off the mark.
Yes, VP expansion is going to have to be done by Nick Knowles & his trusted army of volunteers rather than what we were originally promised, but sustained success on the pitch has to take priority.
Ha!
But seriously, the whole point was that we could expand the stadium as more or less a free hit in terms of its cost. My concern would be that by the time Heck pulls his finger out on this, in 2 or 3 years time, the rules will have been changed (a cynic would say it make sense if you want to make sure we are kept out of the top six) so that future infrastructure investment does become an issue that trips you on FFP. And wouldn't that be convenient.
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2024, 10:26:36 PM
So what was the loss the season before the £300k profit?I'm not sure as I was under the impression the accounts from 21/22 were the accounts for the first year and the these accounts are the second of the 3 year cycle. That was down to Jacob Tanswell ( reporter ) saying a good finish to this season will help, assuming he meant this years accounts were the third year....I might have it wrong though.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 04, 2024, 10:26:41 PM
Can’’t we offload a Chuckwanker type player for a decent fee to bring us into line?
If it’s a £105m loss across 3 years and we’ve done £120m in 1 I’d say no. I may be wrong though? Also who’s that player?
Post by: PeterWithe on March 04, 2024, 10:27:14 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on March 04, 2024, 10:30:24 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 04, 2024, 10:33:53 PM
What does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
You would like to think management have a plan but then you see Chris Heck's efforts since he joined us and you would really have to wonder. Does CL qualification strengthen the club's case for the council to follow through with badly needed investment in public transport nearby or a new stadium site? Do the local council really care?
To think we could qualify for the CL this season and maybe a European trophy and still have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey to balance the books. What's the point then really ...we will be hard pressed to keep Emery not to mind some key players if that's the case.
Jesus, how many times do people need to be told it’s nothing to do with the council?
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 04, 2024, 10:34:23 PM
The statement from the club seems to be fairly relaxed about it all.
Reads more like it’s trying to bury the lead to me.
Post by: astonvilla82 on March 04, 2024, 10:34:28 PM
I'm off to SHA to find out what this really means.They explained it a lot easier,we need to sell Watkins and Luiz, thought we were in trouble at one point
Post by: astonvilla82 on March 04, 2024, 10:36:24 PM
Think he meant the transport problemsWhat does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
You would like to think management have a plan but then you see Chris Heck's efforts since he joined us and you would really have to wonder. Does CL qualification strengthen the club's case for the council to follow through with badly needed investment in public transport nearby or a new stadium site? Do the local council really care?
To think we could qualify for the CL this season and maybe a European trophy and still have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey to balance the books. What's the point then really ...we will be hard pressed to keep Emery not to mind some key players if that's the case.
Jesus, how many times do people need to be told it’s nothing to do with the council?
Post by: Risso on March 04, 2024, 10:41:08 PM
Allowable losses are 105m over three seasons. We’ve lost 120m in one, surely?
Less the allowable adjustments.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 04, 2024, 10:43:24 PM
So what was the loss the season before the £300k profit?
£37m.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 04, 2024, 10:45:08 PM
Think he meant the transport problemsWhat does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
You would like to think management have a plan but then you see Chris Heck's efforts since he joined us and you would really have to wonder. Does CL qualification strengthen the club's case for the council to follow through with badly needed investment in public transport nearby or a new stadium site? Do the local council really care?
To think we could qualify for the CL this season and maybe a European trophy and still have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey to balance the books. What's the point then really ...we will be hard pressed to keep Emery not to mind some key players if that's the case.
Jesus, how many times do people need to be told it’s nothing to do with the council?
So do I.
Post by: VinnieChase84 on March 04, 2024, 10:45:58 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 04, 2024, 10:46:34 PM
Think he meant the transport problemsWhat does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
You would like to think management have a plan but then you see Chris Heck's efforts since he joined us and you would really have to wonder. Does CL qualification strengthen the club's case for the council to follow through with badly needed investment in public transport nearby or a new stadium site? Do the local council really care?
To think we could qualify for the CL this season and maybe a European trophy and still have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey to balance the books. What's the point then really ...we will be hard pressed to keep Emery not to mind some key players if that's the case.
Jesus, how many times do people need to be told it’s nothing to do with the council?
Transport comes under combined authority now doesn't it so Andy Street. Roads will still be council though.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 10:47:02 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 04, 2024, 11:00:13 PM
Stadium naming will fetch sod all, though.
Be interesting to see if the Sty one passes the ‘fair value’ test for associated partners. If they can blag that that is worth £10m a year one would think we could blag £20m at least.
Post by: VillaTim on March 04, 2024, 11:07:09 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 04, 2024, 11:11:06 PM
Does this mean we have to sell Kourtney Hause .
Won't bring in enough, we might have to sell Chambers as well.
Post by: VillaTim on March 04, 2024, 11:12:19 PM
We're fucked then.Does this mean we have to sell Kourtney Hause .
Won't bring in enough, we might have to sell Chambers as well.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 04, 2024, 11:17:54 PM
Imagine being that fucking obsessed. And stupid.
Post by: VillaTim on March 04, 2024, 11:26:26 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 04, 2024, 11:30:56 PM
Fucking hell, take a look at the brain surgeons on the (inevitable) SHA.com thread on this.
Imagine being that fucking obsessed. And stupid.
Especially when their own team are now only just outside the Championship relegation zone by goal difference of one.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 04, 2024, 11:52:53 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 05, 2024, 12:27:55 AM
The statement says we're compliant. Let's hope we are, otherwise we'll be charged with more than just breaching the limits, won't we?
I'm wondering whether Purslow fucked it, which is why he went. As a result the owners, through Heck, are aiming to rinse every penny that they can.
The wages thing doesn't surprise me. Coutinho, Digne, Ings, Buendia etc were all on big deals.
Post by: brontebilly on March 05, 2024, 12:35:08 AM
Think he meant the transport problemsWhat does a new stadium give us that a new North Stand and down the line a new Witton Lane and the warehouse etc can't give us?
Villa Park is one of our unique selling points- do we want to be just any old club playing in a bland soulless bowl?
You would like to think management have a plan but then you see Chris Heck's efforts since he joined us and you would really have to wonder. Does CL qualification strengthen the club's case for the council to follow through with badly needed investment in public transport nearby or a new stadium site? Do the local council really care?
To think we could qualify for the CL this season and maybe a European trophy and still have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey to balance the books. What's the point then really ...we will be hard pressed to keep Emery not to mind some key players if that's the case.
Jesus, how many times do people need to be told it’s nothing to do with the council?
Transport comes under combined authority now doesn't it so Andy Street. Roads will still be council though.
The "authorities" then, responsible for the public transport omnishambles outside the stadium.
It's hardly in the authorities interest for Villa to try to move out of the area either. Seems like a bit of a game being played
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 01:24:43 AM
Archer, Philogene, Ramsey A. All sold to help with compliance.
The statement says we're compliant. Let's hope we are, otherwise we'll be charged with more than just breaching the limits, won't we?
I'm wondering whether Purslow fucked it, which is why he went. As a result the owners, through Heck, are aiming to rinse every penny that they can.
The wages thing doesn't surprise me. Coutinho, Digne, Ings, Buendia etc were all on big deals.
Archer etc will be in next year’s accounts won’t they?
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 05, 2024, 01:26:03 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 03:26:07 AM
I’m curious on how we’re operating in line with the profit and sustainability rules, as the statement says, presumably there’s a fair chunk in the “allowable” deductions/adjustments? Either way though that level of loss is not sustainable.
It is if, as it seems, there’s £70m worth of allowable losses. I think, for the next few years at least, Villa’s owners won’t mind losing £105m over every three years period, and more if the allowable losses go up. IMO they’ll keep pushing as close as they can to the limit of allowed losses.
Post by: Baldy on March 05, 2024, 05:51:04 AM
I would not be surprised if the delay in the Man City rulings is because Man City have made a complete mockery of the FFP rules and the Premier League doesn't know whether to 'stick or twist'.
Villa, like every other club, will be keeping a close eye on the Man City rulings to see how far we can stretch the boundaries for future investment. Precedents will be set!!
For now, let's not worry about having to sell our best assets. I know sweet FA about accountancy but have a feeling there will be a complete overhaul of the FFP rules within the next 12 months which will give all clubs a bit more latitude.
Just a thought.
Post by: aldridgeboy on March 05, 2024, 05:57:33 AM
In a wider sense , football just isn’t a sustainable business if all these clubs are losing huge amounts a year. Something ( wages) has to change across the board ?
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 05, 2024, 06:33:49 AM
If Chelsea choose to move the dial again then the clubs at the bottom should get an increased allowance.
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 06:44:59 AM
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Are you sure about that?
Post by: sid1964 on March 05, 2024, 07:15:52 AM
It does seem unfair that we are now becoming the club that fans have hoped it would be, and now we may have to sell a couple of our "star" players to meet FFP RULES.
Hopefully Mr. Heck has got some fantastic sponsorship deals lined up (training ground, lawn mowers, shirt sponsor, training top sponsor etc...)
Post by: Ads on March 05, 2024, 07:18:39 AM
If we can square the circle in the meantime by only losing players we'd like to lose...
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 07:25:56 AM
The current owners have certainly learnt quickly re: the world class Manager but are hamstrung currently with an inadequate stadium to grow income (and commercial) as rapidly as they want. That being said I’d expect Turnover this year 23/24 to be between €250- €300m with a further increase the following year (€350mish) if we get Champs League and hopefully a decent run in it.
We will have to player trade, possibly even a crown jewel, but for me that’s part of the equation of closing that gap up to the current clubs with higher income/turnover.
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
The project remains on track in my view and people need to hold their nerve that the owners and their senior execs know what they’re doing.
All that being said what helps drive all of it is a winning team on the pitch.
And I’ve just told myself off for using the term “the project”.
Post by: Rigadon on March 05, 2024, 07:28:49 AM
Post by: paul_e on March 05, 2024, 07:30:13 AM
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 07:39:29 AM
It shouldn't have been the intention of the rules but as soon as they linked it to income with no hard caps it was obvious that it was going to protect the big clubs as much as it stopped teams going to the wall.
The answer is to become a big club with a much higher income. It’s not easy to do as we’re finding and it can appear as a closed shop but with wealthy owners we will get there, we just need to be patient.
Post by: Risso on March 05, 2024, 07:39:53 AM
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
A reduction in capacity for building a new stand or stadium is allowable for FFP, so as long as you've got owners who can stump up the cashflow to bridge the gap for a couple of years, then it's not a reason for not building a new stand.
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 07:44:46 AM
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
A reduction in capacity for building a new stand or stadium is allowable for FFP, so as long as you've got owners who can stump up the cashflow to bridge the gap for a couple of years, then it's not a reason for not building a new stand.
For the less financially literate amongst us which includes me would that mean if we lost say £8m a season from North Stand income for 2 years NSWE could fill that gap with £8m cash flow injection per annum and that would be FFP allowable?
Post by: Forge10 on March 05, 2024, 08:09:54 AM
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Are you sure about that?
I think the Big teams Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have been that for years. Man City and Chelsea were never included in that until 20 years ago or so they had somebody throwing ridiculous money around. The powers that be have now put a stop to that so those teams will not be contested size wise for the foreseeable future surely? It’s amazing that Girona are punching above their weight in La Liga but we know that without investment it’s likely to be short lived. I think it suits the bigger teams and governing bodies for the wealth and power to remain with a select few.
Post by: Baldy on March 05, 2024, 08:12:50 AM
It shouldn't have been the intention of the rules but as soon as they linked it to income with no hard caps it was obvious that it was going to protect the big clubs as much as it stopped teams going to the wall.
Purslow was interviewed a week or two ago and said FFP was introduced to 'protect the long term sustainability of clubs but was never intended to 'stunt' the growth of well financed clubs' (words to that effect).
For consideration, he suggested that wealthy clubs should have the option to put 'a large sum of money into a holding account' to act as a security against any future financial hardship. In return, the club would get more flexibility with the FFP rules. It was only an idea, but he thinks its worthy of consideration and agreeing the finer details (small print).
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 05, 2024, 08:13:39 AM
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
A reduction in capacity for building a new stand or stadium is allowable for FFP, so as long as you've got owners who can stump up the cashflow to bridge the gap for a couple of years, then it's not a reason for not building a new stand.
For the less financially literate amongst us which includes me would that mean if we lost say £8m a season from North Stand income for 2 years NSWE could fill that gap with £8m cash flow injection per annum and that would be FFP allowable?
Presumably any cash they inject would have to have some accounting basis in previous years income (i.e. the owners couldn't just turn around and say each of the 7k unavailable seats were suddenly worth £250 per match?). If so then it probably makes a bit more sense as to why it was delayed, but we can expect another massive increase in ticket prices and even more GA+ tickets whilst the club gear up for the capacity reduction.
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 05, 2024, 08:15:50 AM
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Are you sure about that?
I think the Big teams Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have been that for years. Man City and Chelsea were never included in that until 20 years ago or so they had somebody throwing ridiculous money around. The powers that be have now put a stop to that so those teams will not be contested size wise for the foreseeable future surely? It’s amazing that Girona are punching above their weight in La Liga but we know that without investment it’s likely to be short lived. I think it suits the bigger teams and governing bodies for the wealth and power to remain with a select few.
You are aware who owns Girona?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 08:20:11 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 08:26:19 AM
The other thing to bear in mind is that the £120m won't be the FFP figure, it will be less than that. We've opened a second academy with all its costs, that comes off FFP for a start.
So the important thing is what we've done in this season's accounts to keep within the rules. I think it is telling that after the January window closed they extended the financial year till two weeks after the summer transfer window opens, giving them options to do a bit more.
But our revenue will have massively increased. We've earned around £12m already from european games, with another £10m on the table. We know BK8 pay us massively more than Cazoo did. Our ticket prices have gone up considerably, plus all the GA+ revenue on top. And, we haven't had to pay a management team to fuck off for once.
We will have options for ensuring we stay within the rules, and I don't think we're going to be stupid enough to have put ourselves in the situation where we have to sell a £100m player by the end of June to do it. Selling someone might sort it, but not a prized asset while our arms are tied behind our backs.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 05, 2024, 08:26:42 AM
Aren't these losses before PSR deductions. From here the club fil in form 3A that all clubs file for the deductibles. This is then double checked by the PL then they inform the club their final PSR calculation.
Been listening to a lot of Simon Jordan. I think that's correct, isn't it?
Think that this is a pretty major question in all of this.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 08:28:41 AM
Aren't these losses before PSR deductions. From here the club fil in form 3A that all clubs file for the deductibles. This is then double checked by the PL then they inform the club their final PSR calculation.
Been listening to a lot of Simon Jordan. I think that's correct, isn't it?
Think that this is a pretty major question in all of this.
Yes, because these losses are the company accounts and used for tax purposes. HMRC has yet to fall under the Premier League's thrall.
Post by: Baldy on March 05, 2024, 08:33:13 AM
Post by: The Edge on March 05, 2024, 08:36:24 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 08:39:08 AM
My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?
Definitely not this year as we would have been charged already.
Next season depends what happens in this season's accounts. If we've made it worse this season, potentially a deduction next season.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 08:43:02 AM
My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?
No points this year. No points next year as long as we are smart which overall I think we have been.
We'll be pushing 250-260m income and probably a lower net spend on players.
However I still think we will need a prized asset sale - probably Luiz to balance the books comfortably.
Can someone clarify are we allowed to deduct the 'investments' womens football, training ground from the losses?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 08:43:46 AM
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Are you sure about that?
I think the Big teams Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have been that for years. Man City and Chelsea were never included in that until 20 years ago or so they had somebody throwing ridiculous money around. The powers that be have now put a stop to that so those teams will not be contested size wise for the foreseeable future surely? It’s amazing that Girona are punching above their weight in La Liga but we know that without investment it’s likely to be short lived. I think it suits the bigger teams and governing bodies for the wealth and power to remain with a select few.
I was asking if he was sure about protection of the big 6 never being the intention.
Post by: The Edge on March 05, 2024, 08:44:20 AM
Found Purslow interview a week ago for anyone who wishes to hear it:That was very informative. Thanks mate. He seems so clued up compared the his replacement it makes me wonder whether wonder if that's the first and biggest rick that our owners have made.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 08:45:54 AM
My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?
No points this year. No points next year as long as we are smart which overall I think we have been.
We'll be pushing 250-260m income and probably a lower net spend on players.
However I still think we will need a prized asset sale - probably Luiz to balance the books comfortably.
Can someone clarify are we allowed to deduct the 'investments' womens football, training ground from the losses?
Women's team definitely. I know the academy can be deducted. Training ground I would think so, because we always seem to spend on it!
Post by: The Edge on March 05, 2024, 08:46:16 AM
Cheers.My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?
No points this year. No points next year as long as we are smart which overall I think we have been.
We'll be pushing 250-260m income and probably a lower net spend on players.
However I still think we will need a prized asset sale - probably Luiz to balance the books comfortably.
Can someone clarify are we allowed to deduct the 'investments' womens football, training ground from the losses?
Post by: tomd2103 on March 05, 2024, 08:49:07 AM
- This season is the 3rd year of the FFP period? In year one we had a profit of £300k and the annual.accounts are showing that in year two we had a loss of £120m?
- The loss of £120m is the accounts figure and is not the FFP figure though as certain costs could be deducted from it?
- The third year will be up.to this June, so if we have breached the FFP rules, it will be next December / January when any punishment will be meted out?
- It's a rolling 3 year period, so the £300k profit will come off after the next one and the £120m loss period will be 'year one'?
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 08:49:30 AM
My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?
Definitely not this year as we would have been charged already.
Next season depends what happens in this season's accounts. If we've made it worse this season, potentially a deduction next season.
I doubt we’ve made it worse. Can easily see that 23/24 income figure being well north of £250m. The big issue is have we kept the costs side of the equation under control? If we haven’t we’ll probably have to sell. Then the question is who?
Post by: Baldy on March 05, 2024, 08:55:07 AM
Alternatively, we have a good looking squad. One of them should date Taylor Swift. She could hold a few concerts at Villa Park. Why not, the rest of the world is doing it to balance the books.
Post by: Forge10 on March 05, 2024, 08:55:09 AM
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Are you sure about that?
I think the Big teams Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have been that for years. Man City and Chelsea were never included in that until 20 years ago or so they had somebody throwing ridiculous money around. The powers that be have now put a stop to that so those teams will not be contested size wise for the foreseeable future surely? It’s amazing that Girona are punching above their weight in La Liga but we know that without investment it’s likely to be short lived. I think it suits the bigger teams and governing bodies for the wealth and power to remain with a select few.
You are aware who owns Girona?
Actually I wasn’t 😂 Surely now that doesn’t change things though. Even with all that backing are they going to compete with Barca,Real with the current rules in place?
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 08:57:44 AM
You take the Actual Profit/Loss before Tax and add back in;
- Depreciation / impairment of tangible fixed assets
- Amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other
intangible assets (excluding amortisation of the costs of
players’ registrations) - Youth Development Expenditure
- Women’s Football Expenditure
- Community Development Expenditure
That gives you the figure considered for Profit & Sustainability. Doesn't look like the training ground is covered, unless you argue a portion of it is for the women and youth teams too.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 09:00:04 AM
The solution has been the same right back to the 1990s, grow your income and employ a world class Football Manager. From Ellis, through Lerner to Tony Shitshoes we had three owners utterly incapable of doing this.
The current owners have certainly learnt quickly re: the world class Manager but are hamstrung currently with an inadequate stadium to grow income (and commercial) as rapidly as they want. That being said I’d expect Turnover this year 23/24 to be between €250- €300m with a further increase the following year (€350mish) if we get Champs League and hopefully a decent run in it.
We will have to player trade, possibly even a crown jewel, but for me that’s part of the equation of closing that gap up to the current clubs with higher income/turnover.
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
The project remains on track in my view and people need to hold their nerve that the owners and their senior execs know what they’re doing.
All that being said what helps drive all of it is a winning team on the pitch.
And I’ve just told myself off for using the term “the project”.
Liverpool sold their crown jewel in Coutinho as a basis for their now continued success. Not the end of the world
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 09:03:14 AM
Post by: dicedlam on March 05, 2024, 09:04:38 AM
The solution has been the same right back to the 1990s, grow your income and employ a world class Football Manager. From Ellis, through Lerner to Tony Shitshoes we had three owners utterly incapable of doing this.
The current owners have certainly learnt quickly re: the world class Manager but are hamstrung currently with an inadequate stadium to grow income (and commercial) as rapidly as they want. That being said I’d expect Turnover this year 23/24 to be between €250- €300m with a further increase the following year (€350mish) if we get Champs League and hopefully a decent run in it.
We will have to player trade, possibly even a crown jewel, but for me that’s part of the equation of closing that gap up to the current clubs with higher income/turnover.
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
The project remains on track in my view and people need to hold their nerve that the owners and their senior execs know what they’re doing.
All that being said what helps drive all of it is a winning team on the pitch.
And I’ve just told myself off for using the term “the project”.
Liverpool sold their crown jewel in Coutinho as a basis for their now continued success. Not the end of the world
Yeah, but Coutinho 2024 will not fetch us more than fifty bob.
Post by: LeeB on March 05, 2024, 09:04:58 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 09:06:13 AM
The solution has been the same right back to the 1990s, grow your income and employ a world class Football Manager. From Ellis, through Lerner to Tony Shitshoes we had three owners utterly incapable of doing this.
The current owners have certainly learnt quickly re: the world class Manager but are hamstrung currently with an inadequate stadium to grow income (and commercial) as rapidly as they want. That being said I’d expect Turnover this year 23/24 to be between €250- €300m with a further increase the following year (€350mish) if we get Champs League and hopefully a decent run in it.
We will have to player trade, possibly even a crown jewel, but for me that’s part of the equation of closing that gap up to the current clubs with higher income/turnover.
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
The project remains on track in my view and people need to hold their nerve that the owners and their senior execs know what they’re doing.
All that being said what helps drive all of it is a winning team on the pitch.
And I’ve just told myself off for using the term “the project”.
Liverpool sold their crown jewel in Coutinho as a basis for their now continued success. Not the end of the world
Yeah, but Coutinho 2024 will not fetch us more than fifty bob.
I don't think he meant we could sell Coutinho to save ourselves!
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 09:09:21 AM
The solution has been the same right back to the 1990s, grow your income and employ a world class Football Manager. From Ellis, through Lerner to Tony Shitshoes we had three owners utterly incapable of doing this.
The current owners have certainly learnt quickly re: the world class Manager but are hamstrung currently with an inadequate stadium to grow income (and commercial) as rapidly as they want. That being said I’d expect Turnover this year 23/24 to be between €250- €300m with a further increase the following year (€350mish) if we get Champs League and hopefully a decent run in it.
We will have to player trade, possibly even a crown jewel, but for me that’s part of the equation of closing that gap up to the current clubs with higher income/turnover.
On stadium expansion I can only surmise that the short term hit to our Matchday income by reducing capacity just doesn’t work in the financial model whilst we have to chase income and close the revenue gap.
The project remains on track in my view and people need to hold their nerve that the owners and their senior execs know what they’re doing.
All that being said what helps drive all of it is a winning team on the pitch.
And I’ve just told myself off for using the term “the project”.
Liverpool sold their crown jewel in Coutinho as a basis for their now continued success. Not the end of the world
Yeah, but Coutinho 2024 will not fetch us more than fifty bob.
He is a prized asset anymore - just a liability
Post by: Baldy on March 05, 2024, 09:17:36 AM
www.bbc.com/sport/football/68476722
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 09:28:55 AM
BBC article today on our finances should you wish to read it:
www.bbc.com/sport/football/68476722
Subext - they are only doing well because they auditors haven't caught up with them yet.
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2024, 09:29:12 AM
I can see some clever accounting here around the new Witton Academy, the Women's side of the club and a pre-payment on the new sponsorship and shirt deals. We have players we can sell too - and not get rid of the key ones.
Duran
Chambers
Phil
Dendonkar
Iroegbunam
Kellyman
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 09:30:38 AM
BBC article today on our finances should you wish to read it:
www.bbc.com/sport/football/68476722
Looking at the photo on that, they're going to try and cut costs by making the Prize where it Lies game much more difficult.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 09:41:28 AM
The Gerrard experiment will have cost the best part of £40m...
I can see some clever accounting here around the new Witton Academy, the Women's side of the club and a pre-payment on the new sponsorship and shirt deals. We have players we can sell too - and not get rid of the key ones.
Duran
Chambers
Phil
Dendonkar
Iroegbunam
Kellyman
Being realistic - we're not going to get rid of Duran, as he is literally our only other striker as it is. Tim and Kellyman aren't going to fetch the sort of money Archer and Ramsey did as they're not as 'far along the road', Coutinho and Chambers will have almost no value, and Dendoncker not much more.
Yes, of course, it's all money, but it's not very much of it, and it's also creating certain holes in the squad which we'd only have to go out and fill.
The sponsorship deal also has two years left to run, and there's no suggestion that's ending any time soon (plus pays decent money in any case).
Post by: chrisw1 on March 05, 2024, 09:51:51 AM
This is my laymans assessment (sorry Sexual). The 22/23 accounts are both the third, second and first year of a 3 year rolling FFP period.
2023 - For the 3 year period ending 2023, Dogtanian has confirmed the key point, if we had breached FFP for that 3 year period we would already have been charged like Everton and Forest.
2024 - obviously last years loss makes complying with the 3 year period ending this June much more difficult - and that is where the speculation that we will have to sell by end June has come from. Personally, I think that is highly unlikely as I just can't see us having made the Jan signings if that was true. As many have pointed out our spending has gone up, but so has our income. It may ultimately rest on our league position and progress un the UCL, but if we've left ourselves that tight then someone needs shooting.
2025 - IF we do end up selling a major player after June this year, I assume it will be to mainly to allow us more manoeuvrability to do some work on the squad for next season, as opposed to it being a fire sale.
Post by: olaftab on March 05, 2024, 09:52:24 AM
You mean a bit like HT on Saturday, where the lifted the target before a ball was kicked?BBC article today on our finances should you wish to read it:
www.bbc.com/sport/football/68476722
Looking at the photo on that, they're going to try and cut costs by making the Prize where it Lies game much more difficult.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 05, 2024, 09:59:13 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 05, 2024, 10:13:40 AM
There does seem to be a lot of confusion out there.I think this is a fair assessment.
This is my laymans assessment (sorry Sexual). The 22/23 accounts are both the third, second and first year of a 3 year rolling FFP period.
2023 - For the 3 year period ending 2023, Dogtanian has confirmed the key point, if we had breached FFP for that 3 year period we would already have been charged like Everton and Forest.
2024 - obviously last years loss makes complying with the 3 year period ending this June much more difficult - and that is where the speculation that we will have to sell by end June has come from. Personally, I think that is highly unlikely as I just can't see us having made the Jan signings if that was true. As many have pointed out our spending has gone up, but so has our income. It may ultimately rest on our league position and progress un the UCL, but if we've left ourselves that tight then someone needs shooting.
2025 - IF we do end up selling a major player after June this year, I assume it will be to mainly to allow us more manoeuvrability to do some work on the squad for next season, as opposed to it being a fire sale.
Post by: Dave on March 05, 2024, 10:19:56 AM
I think that there will be alot of clubs in this situation. I think spurs will make some major losses as will arsenal.
Spurs have got their version of the Grealish money from the Kane sale though.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 10:22:45 AM
There does seem to be a lot of confusion out there.
This is my laymans assessment (sorry Sexual). The 22/23 accounts are both the third, second and first year of a 3 year rolling FFP period.
2023 - For the 3 year period ending 2023, Dogtanian has confirmed the key point, if we had breached FFP for that 3 year period we would already have been charged like Everton and Forest.
2024 - obviously last years loss makes complying with the 3 year period ending this June much more difficult - and that is where the speculation that we will have to sell by end June has come from. Personally, I think that is highly unlikely as I just can't see us having made the Jan signings if that was true. As many have pointed out our spending has gone up, but so has our income. It may ultimately rest on our league position and progress un the UCL, but if we've left ourselves that tight then someone needs shooting.
2025 - IF we do end up selling a major player after June this year, I assume it will be to mainly to allow us more manoeuvrability to do some work on the squad for next season, as opposed to it being a fire sale.
You are kind of right, but I think you're underestimating the challenge this current year is going to pose.
Looking at twitter and the discussions around this, I think there is a bit of confusion over the term "Villa have got FFP problems".
Some people seem to think that means problems right now, ie that we are in breach - and we are not. So, strictly speaking, right now it isn't a problem, because as you said, of the nature of the three year rolling calculation.
The figures for the 3 years in these accounts are +300k, -£37m, -£120m. After all the deductions of allowables, we're inside the £105m.
The problem is that from next accounts (ie this season), the two previous years that will add to the calculation don't include the Grealish year (the small profit year), so we start from a base of 157m from two years, which puts us on the back foot really quickly.
But on the flip side - looking at what will constitute the 3rd year in that total, we sold Archer £19m, Ramsey £14m, Philogene £5m, Azaz £3m, in that period - that's £41m in home grown players, which means we can book all of that against 'next' year. Side point - for all the (understandable) anguish around selling Archer and Ramsey in the summer, this is exactly why. So we're starting that year from a position of strength. We also have Danny Ings off the books, too. In that period we've signed the Serbian RB kid and Rodgers, for a total of, what, 18m or so, so they'll be across 5 years - £3.6m a year total, not a huge amount.
If we finish 4th, we're going to pick up more prize money, more tv money. Commercial revenue will be higher this year, yes, and we'll have a little bit of Conference League revenue to the pot, but not a huge amount - apparently £5m thus far, which would go up to £12m for winning it plus a bit of tv money from UEFA.
I am not sure about the Adidas deal, I guess that all depends on when it starts, whether it's inside this current financial year or not - and tbh, we also have no idea how much more that is worth than the Castore deal.
Again, though, what I don't get is we've seemingly got the money to invest in the stadium to increase our money making potential (look at Spurs' insane uplift from their new stadium - I appreciate we'd never earn that much because London etc etc, but even so) but have opted not to do it.
Short of somehow going on a truly insane period of hoovering up trophies, I just don't see how we really build something that can be mid-long term competitive without improving or replacing the stadium (let alone, given how many of our peers have already done it or are planning to).
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 10:23:16 AM
I think that there will be alot of clubs in this situation. I think spurs will make some major losses as will arsenal.
Spurs have got their version of the Grealish money from the Kane sale though.
And Spam/ Brighton for similar reasons. Chelsea will be interesting though although they always seem to be ahead on how to structure stuff to get around FFP.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 10:25:08 AM
I think that there will be alot of clubs in this situation. I think spurs will make some major losses as will arsenal.
Spurs have got their version of the Grealish money from the Kane sale though.
And Spam/ Brighton for similar reasons. Chelsea will be interesting though although they always seem to be ahead on how to structure stuff to get around FFP.
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
Post by: lovejoy on March 05, 2024, 10:30:51 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 10:33:09 AM
Why has the FFP limit of £105m not changed with inflation?
That is one of the changes being requested by clubs and will probably be voted threw.
Post by: lovejoy on March 05, 2024, 10:36:56 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 10:41:47 AM
The big issue with FFP is buying players and paying them. Yes, stadium costs and paying catering staff and kit washers and retail people and everything goes up with inflation, but nobody is paying players more wages simply because the cost of the weekly shop has gone up £50. And Eric and Tina's wage for slowly selling pies and pints every other week are not tipping clubs into the abyss.
Raising the limit will just mean higher transfer fees and higher wages to soak it all up again and we're back where we started.
Post by: itbrvilla on March 05, 2024, 10:42:27 AM
Post by: Chris Harte on March 05, 2024, 10:45:41 AM
Meanwhile, winning the Conference League nets around €20m.
In short, if we qualify, I think we'll be adding to the squad rather than selling our stars.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 10:47:29 AM
How many teams are realistically going to attempt to sign Dougie, Ramsay, Kamara etc. for £50m+?
Plenty would pay well above 50m for Luiz and probably Kamara too.
The positive is that we have - and nobody wants to take this option, but it's way better to at least have it than not - plenty of players we could sell for a lot of money and pocket almost all of it. Luiz, for example, has been here, what, four years? He'll be off the books in terms of amortisation. Sell him to someone for 80m and we're pocketing all of it.
Imagine how much we could get for Watkins - again, if we had to. It's fucking grim thinking we might have to do things like this and shows how insane FFP's implementation is, but we are in a better position than most. What would be horrific would be being in that situation and not having sellable assets as a last chance escape route.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 10:48:39 AM
I had a quick look at the prize money for next season's Champions League. €20m+ just for being in the competition. €2.1m per match won. And there are other payouts that appeared significant although I can't remember what they are now.
Meanwhile, winning the Conference League nets around €20m.
In short, if we qualify, I think we'll be adding to the squad rather than selling our stars.
That's not right, though, because the year we need to be worried about is right now, the one that finishes at the end of this season, not next season.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 10:51:41 AM
Problem will be if we need to shift players and everyone else is in the same spot. How many teams are realistically going to attempt to sign Dougie, Ramsay, Kamara etc. for £50m+?
Yes, but it depends how much we need, and selling players isn't just about the fee, it's also about the wages and depreciation.
Currently, Diego Carlos, Lucas Digne, Dendoncker, Coutinho, and Sanson are costing us about £20m a season in depreciation, then their wages are on top. Being creative with these sorts of players can help get us over the line without selling a single £100m player.
There was talk in January that selling Duran would help us with FFP. But that if we didn't, we had other options. So for all we know, we might only need to be covering £20-30m.
It might leave us tight for spending next season, but if Emery is happy with his squad (and it should be stronger with players coming back) then that might be okay. Not splashing the cash next season, and pulling down Champions League and Adidas money with a squad that's shown it can compete for top four, would put us in a great position in 18 months time.
Post by: aev on March 05, 2024, 10:56:24 AM
How many teams are realistically going to attempt to sign Dougie, Ramsay, Kamara etc. for £50m+?
Plenty would pay well above 50m for Luiz and probably Kamara too.
The positive is that we have - and nobody wants to take this option, but it's way better to at least have it than not - plenty of players we could sell for a lot of money and pocket almost all of it. Luiz, for example, has been here, what, four years? He'll be off the books in terms of amortisation. Sell him to someone for 80m and we're pocketing all of it.
Imagine how much we could get for Watkins - again, if we had to. It's fucking grim thinking we might have to do things like this and shows how insane FFP's implementation is, but we are in a better position than most. What would be horrific would be being in that situation and not having sellable assets as a last chance escape route.
Imagine having to rely on selling Dominic Calvert-Lewin.
Post by: Drummond on March 05, 2024, 10:57:19 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 11:00:36 AM
I think that there will be alot of clubs in this situation. I think spurs will make some major losses as will arsenal.
Spurs have got their version of the Grealish money from the Kane sale though.
And Spam/ Brighton for similar reasons. Chelsea will be interesting though although they always seem to be ahead on how to structure stuff to get around FFP.
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
They had the one summer the same as the Grealish summer where they sold 118 mil euros of homegrown players and spent it pretty much all on bringing Lukaku back. They then spent 611 mil euros the following summer with very little expenditure and 511 mil last year albeit with Mount (homegrown) and others being sold for 250m euros. So I don't see how over 1 billion being spent in two seasons with 350mil back is profitable, even with it being London prices. Of course most of those they had on the 10 year contracts to spread the cost before that got banned.
Post by: lovejoy on March 05, 2024, 11:01:57 AM
Post by: Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:02:03 AM
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.
And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 05, 2024, 11:03:53 AM
Fair point.I had a quick look at the prize money for next season's Champions League. €20m+ just for being in the competition. €2.1m per match won. And there are other payouts that appeared significant although I can't remember what they are now.
Meanwhile, winning the Conference League nets around €20m.
In short, if we qualify, I think we'll be adding to the squad rather than selling our stars.
That's not right, though, because the year we need to be worried about is right now, the one that finishes at the end of this season, not next season.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 11:04:12 AM
I think that there will be alot of clubs in this situation. I think spurs will make some major losses as will arsenal.
Spurs have got their version of the Grealish money from the Kane sale though.
And Spam/ Brighton for similar reasons. Chelsea will be interesting though although they always seem to be ahead on how to structure stuff to get around FFP.
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
They had the one summer the same as the Grealish summer where they sold 118 mil euros of homegrown players and spent it pretty much all on bringing Lukaku back. They then spent 611 mil euros the following summer with very little expenditure and 511 mil last year albeit with Mount (homegrown) and others being sold for 250m euros. So I don't see how over 1 billion being spent in two seasons with 350mil back is profitable, even with it being London prices. Of course most of those they had on the 10 year contracts to spread the cost before that got banned.
It's because that big money for home grown players all goes into the current year, so so long as they continue doing that, they're ok.
They'll sell Gallagher this summer for a decent fee, and that'll float it all for a bit longer.
It's a gamble, a big one, and I hope it blows up in their smug faces, but that's how they're doing it and staying within the rules.
I think probably (other than Everton), the team with the biggest problem here is Newcastle, as they only seem to do the one side of the transfer equation - the buying players bit - they never seem to sell home grown talent for decent money.
Post by: Proposition Joe on March 05, 2024, 11:05:16 AM
Can anyone guess how much of the £120m counts against the FFP rules once the non-qualifying expenditure is knocked off?
There's a Tweet from Maher that says ~£56m in covid related costs and then the club statement mentions ~£13m in infrastructure investment so potentially around £69-70m
Given we made a profit the year before, this still has us OK with the rolling average?
Post by: tomd2103 on March 05, 2024, 11:06:22 AM
Fuck it. Go all out for chumps league next season, accept a points deduction and just start behind everyone else.
Everton's 10 point deduction in the Autumn was for the period ending 21/22 wasn't it, so more than a season after?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 11:06:30 AM
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.
And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.
Yeah. It'll be Gallagher this year, but then you do wonder at what point they run out of 'runway' like this.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 05, 2024, 11:07:53 AM
Fuck it. Go all out for chumps league next season, accept a points deduction and just start behind everyone else.Even if we had six points taken off us now we'd still be ahead of Yanited.
Part of me would think we'd be good enough to absorb that penalty.
Post by: The Edge on March 05, 2024, 11:08:48 AM
The old "beak the bank" approach, ask Sheff Wed, Portsmouth, Derby how that worked out.Yes those clubs definitely went down in the pecking order after that.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on March 05, 2024, 11:10:29 AM
The old "beak the bank" approach, ask Sheff Wed, Portsmouth, Derby how that worked out.Yes those clubs definitely went down in the pecking order after that.
In their case one swallow a summer did not make.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 11:10:42 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 05, 2024, 11:11:20 AM
It was, but they're now ensuring it will kick in the following season - that's why any punishment for Everton & Forest will kick this season for FFP y/e 23, although farcically the clubs may not know the outcome until after the season has ended. If people thinks VAR impacts on goal celebtrations, wait until the end of the season when 5-6 clubs will have no idea what they need from their last game to stay up.Fuck it. Go all out for chumps league next season, accept a points deduction and just start behind everyone else.
Everton's 10 point deduction in the Autumn was for the period ending 21/22 wasn't it, so more than a season after?
Post by: Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:12:07 AM
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.
And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.
Yeah. It'll be Gallagher this year, but then you do wonder at what point they run out of 'runway' like this.
They must be gutted that Reece James seems to be made out of papier-mâché. Levi Colwill would keep things afloat for another season. After that, it's pretty thin gruel.
Edit - they're also getting £30m from Newcastle in the summer for Lewis Hall to add to whatever they get for Gallagher.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 11:22:40 AM
They'll sell Gallagher this summer for a decent fee, and that'll float it all for a bit longer.
They got 50 million for Mount because Man Utd were mugs. I can't see them getting anymore then 30mil for Gallagher at a push. Depending on how young they are bought before they become "free" money (Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs), the only other cash-in who came through their ranks is Reece James, but being as he has had to have surgery to fix a hamstring issue, I don't see him bringing in that much.
Post by: Drummond on March 05, 2024, 11:24:03 AM
I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.
Obviously you wouldn't say that out loud, but it's got to be part of the discussion internally
Post by: Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:26:09 AM
(Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs)
According to Wikipedia Colwill's been at Chelsea since he joined their under-nines.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 05, 2024, 11:27:42 AM
Post by: Drummond on March 05, 2024, 11:29:59 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 11:32:41 AM
I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.
Obviously you wouldn't say that out loud, but it's got to be part of the discussion internally
You wouldn't need to say in out loud. It'd be obvious what we'd be doing. I don't want us to be that club.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 05, 2024, 11:37:29 AM
Post by: darren woolley on March 05, 2024, 11:38:20 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 11:38:37 AM
(Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs)
According to Wikipedia Colwill's been at Chelsea since he joined their under-nines.
Yes, getting my will's, wells confused together. (Thought I had the one transfer page up and had the other, checked someone elses then came back and chose Chilwell again).
Post by: Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:39:50 AM
Before I'm guessing that some of the richer clubs were happy to restrict the likes of us and Newcastle, but with the likes of ManYoo, Chelsea, Arsenal etc suddenly finding themselves on the other side of that divide you'd think they'll find 14 clubs who would prefer not to have to sell youth team players every year?
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 05, 2024, 11:44:16 AM
Given these are Premier League rules, and the clubs that make up the Premier League decide jointly what the rules should be, isn't the most likely scenario here that the clubs between them decide that the current rules are too prohibitive and at some point in the next couple of years they're relaxed?Agree, it is a poor way of trying to govern the games excesses.
Before I'm guessing that some of the richer clubs were happy to restrict the likes of us and Newcastle, but with the likes of ManYoo, Chelsea, Arsenal etc suddenly finding themselves on the other side of that divide you'd think they'll find 14 clubs who would prefer not to have to sell youth team players every year?
And I doubt they are far off getting 14 clubs to agree.
Post by: Risso on March 05, 2024, 11:45:57 AM
I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.
Obviously you wouldn't say that out loud, but it's got to be part of the discussion internally
Paddy's right, Everton only had their penalty reduced because they were not seen as trying to take the piss. I reckon if it was obvious that a team was borderline non-compliant and then went out and spent a £100m or whatever anyway in a "to hell with the consequences" way, they'd be looking at 12 points plus being deducted. Unless it's Man City, obviously.
Post by: DB on March 05, 2024, 11:47:30 AM
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 05, 2024, 11:52:59 AM
They'll sell Gallagher this summer for a decent fee, and that'll float it all for a bit longer.
They got 50 million for Mount because Man Utd were mugs. I can't see them getting anymore then 30mil for Gallagher at a push. Depending on how young they are bought before they become "free" money (Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs), the only other cash-in who came through their ranks is Reece James, but being as he has had to have surgery to fix a hamstring issue, I don't see him bringing in that much.
Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount? Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 11:56:31 AM
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.
And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.
Yeah. It'll be Gallagher this year, but then you do wonder at what point they run out of 'runway' like this.
PArt of me think Liverpool giving airtime to so many youngsters is that they will flog them to the highest bidder. If they get to keep the best 1 or 2 and sell the others than all the better for them. Probably 100m saved up for a rainy day.
Post by: lovejoy on March 05, 2024, 11:59:46 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 05, 2024, 11:59:52 AM
I honestly think it was far more about stopping any more Man Cities than protecting clubs financially.Given these are Premier League rules, and the clubs that make up the Premier League decide jointly what the rules should be, isn't the most likely scenario here that the clubs between them decide that the current rules are too prohibitive and at some point in the next couple of years they're relaxed?Agree, it is a poor way of trying to govern the games excesses.
Before I'm guessing that some of the richer clubs were happy to restrict the likes of us and Newcastle, but with the likes of ManYoo, Chelsea, Arsenal etc suddenly finding themselves on the other side of that divide you'd think they'll find 14 clubs who would prefer not to have to sell youth team players every year?
And I doubt they are far off getting 14 clubs to agree.
Post by: Rigadon on March 05, 2024, 12:01:28 PM
Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.
The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.
And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.
Yeah. It'll be Gallagher this year, but then you do wonder at what point they run out of 'runway' like this.
PArt of me think Liverpool giving airtime to so many youngsters is that they will flog them to the highest bidder. If they get to keep the best 1 or 2 and sell the others than all the better for them. Probably 100m saved up for a rainy day.
You really do need to refer them as 'Klopp's kids'.
Post by: Monty on March 05, 2024, 12:02:34 PM
Post by: lovejoy on March 05, 2024, 12:06:08 PM
Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.
and leaves political interference as another avenue of influence, if you don't let us off this FFP breach we will withdraw than defence contract.
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 12:08:32 PM
Post by: Monty on March 05, 2024, 12:09:44 PM
I don’t think we can really talk about other clubs winning the lottery when our owners have a fortune in excess of £10bn between them and have been bankrolling the club to FFP limits for the past 5 and a half years, we’re the very definition of a lottery winning club. That’s not to say we haven’t gone about things in the right way but it’s a bit rich moaning about Cit£h etc when about 85 other clubs would give their left arm to be where we are and have our owners and finances.
Believe me, I was including how annoying it must be for everyone else when we win it.
Post by: Rigadon on March 05, 2024, 12:10:18 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 05, 2024, 12:10:46 PM
It shouldn't have been the intention of the rules but as soon as they linked it to income with no hard caps it was obvious that it was going to protect the big clubs as much as it stopped teams going to the wall.
Purslow was interviewed a week or two ago and said FFP was introduced to 'protect the long term sustainability of clubs but was never intended to 'stunt' the growth of well financed clubs' (words to that effect).
For consideration, he suggested that wealthy clubs should have the option to put 'a large sum of money into a holding account' to act as a security against any future financial hardship. In return, the club would get more flexibility with the FFP rules. It was only an idea, but he thinks its worthy of consideration and agreeing the finer details (small print).
My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?
No points this year. No points next year as long as we are smart which overall I think we have been.
We'll be pushing 250-260m income and probably a lower net spend on players.
However I still think we will need a prized asset sale - probably Luiz to balance the books comfortably.
Can someone clarify are we allowed to deduct the 'investments' womens football, training ground from the losses?
Training ground and infrastructure investment is definitely deductable, and was highlighted as £13.5m in the club statement. Academy is also out of scope and is probably part of these accounts (I don't think they're posted seperately). The womens team is a seperate entity on companies house so won't be in these numbers.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 12:11:55 PM
Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.
Mathhew Syed said Abramovic used Chelsea as vehicle to garner citizenship and gloss over shady dealings in acquiring Gazprom. Ooooo look isn't he great for English football.
Post by: Monty on March 05, 2024, 12:14:22 PM
Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.
Mathhew Syed said Abramovic used Chelsea as vehicle to garner citizenship and gloss over shady dealings in acquiring Gazprom. Ooooo look isn't he great for English football.
Chelsea are the purest grey-area example. Private or state? In Putin's Russia, such distinctions are so much jam.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 12:17:19 PM
Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.
Mathhew Syed said Abramovic used Chelsea as vehicle to garner citizenship and gloss over shady dealings in acquiring Gazprom. Ooooo look isn't he great for English football.
Chelsea are the purest grey-area example. Private or state? In Putin's Russia, such distinctions are so much jam.
Did anyone check Doug's corpse with a Geiger counter?
Post by: PeterWithe on March 05, 2024, 12:52:27 PM
Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount? Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.
I think Juventus and Barcelona did something akin to this with swapping two players Pjanic and Arthur. Don't know if that loophole was closed afterward.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 05, 2024, 01:08:45 PM
At the moment ‘the big 6’ are protected due to their greater income which was never the intention of the rules.
Are you sure about that?
The cynic in me agrees with you, but I think the whole idea of FFP originated from that corrupt twat Platini in order to attempt stopping the dominance of English clubs in Europe.
The whole thing has been hijacked & distorted into a way of keeping the status quo as it is.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 05, 2024, 01:30:13 PM
They'll sell Gallagher this summer for a decent fee, and that'll float it all for a bit longer.
They got 50 million for Mount because Man Utd were mugs. I can't see them getting anymore then 30mil for Gallagher at a push. Depending on how young they are bought before they become "free" money (Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs), the only other cash-in who came through their ranks is Reece James, but being as he has had to have surgery to fix a hamstring issue, I don't see him bringing in that much.
Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount? Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.
The only problem in that scenario is we improve Chelsea by giving them Ramsey & we weaken ourselves by signing that over caffeinated Yorkshire Terrier, Gallagher.
Now Reece James, that would be a fairer swap...
Post by: Jon Crofts on March 05, 2024, 01:45:56 PM
Post by: rougegorge on March 05, 2024, 01:47:52 PM
Post by: robbyfvillain on March 05, 2024, 01:53:33 PM
300m profit
200m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
When the large profit drops out they will almost certainly fail FFP. It is even worse if they don't spend the money in the following year as they will fail FFP for more years than just one.
300m profit
20m loss
20m loss
200m loss
20 m loss
20 m loss
Am I missing something
Post by: jwarry on March 05, 2024, 02:04:00 PM
Isn't the problem with FFP the timing of profit and losses. If any club has a fantastic year profit wise they will almost certainly fail FFP if they attempt to spend that profit. E.g
300m profit
200m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
When the large profit drops out they will almost certainly fail FFP. It is even worse if they don't spend the money in the following year as they will fail FFP for more years than just one.
300m profit
20m loss
20m loss
200m loss
20 m loss
20 m loss
Am I missing something
If you are right that is just bizarre, especially when the whole point is to ensure clubs are sustainable
Post by: garyfouroaks on March 05, 2024, 02:11:31 PM
Capital expenditure on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a twenty home game season..
Post by: Smithy on March 05, 2024, 02:19:40 PM
The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital expenditure on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a twenty home game season..
Honestly, as much an extra £10m-ish a year would be lovely, it's not going to make a serious dent in catching up with the teams regularly in the top 6. We're behind all of these teams by £100m+ in revenue terms. By all means lets grow the match-day revenue, and a bigger stadium definitely has benefits beyond just more ticket sales, but we're only going to compete long term by increasing our income away from the pitch.
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 05, 2024, 02:24:33 PM
The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital expenditure on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a twenty home game season..
Is this part of the reason we won't do it now though? Someone has already said that the owners are able to inject cash to cover the drop in capacity whilst a build is done under PFS rules, but at the moment I would assume that would have to be at the rate of some kind of average ticket price to prevent clubs form overstating - it is already known that Villa currently have one of the lowest spends per ticket in the Premier League.
Assuming we see another big increase to prices for next season, together with a larger amount of tickets ringfenced for GA+ we will see that price increase markedly. If that has gone from, say, £27 per seat (which was the figure being banded about) to closer to £75 per seat that is potentially £10 million more per season that can be used to comply with PFS.
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 05, 2024, 02:25:21 PM
Club has come out and said it’s within the PSR and FFP remit and within ‘their strategic business plan' but isn't going to say that.
Post by: VillaTim on March 05, 2024, 02:25:33 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 05, 2024, 02:36:10 PM
I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.
Agreed I’m not sure 6 points should be seen as the benchmark punishment, more of a guideline of what might happen in a specific circumstance. It would be very naive to think a club can basically flout the rules however they wish and 6 points is all they’d face.
Post by: Gareth on March 05, 2024, 02:43:41 PM
I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.
Agreed I’m not sure 6 points should be seen as the benchmark punishment, more of a guideline of what might happen in a specific circumstance. It would be very naive to think a club can basically flout the rules however they wish and 6 points is all they’d face.
We’ll see that in next few weeks by what happens to Forest and the repeat offenders Everton…if it’s a couple of 6’s most will see it as a benchmark….the original 10 is a proper deterrent to most, 6 most of the top dozen clubs would back themselves to overcome I’d guess
Post by: jon collett on March 05, 2024, 02:51:56 PM
The benchmark for a deliberate breach would still be 10.
Post by: brontebilly on March 05, 2024, 03:01:13 PM
The thought of having to sell Luiz or Ramsey after qualifying for the CL is beyond depressing. We won't get better by selling our best players. There was me hoping we could get Grealish or a player of his quality in this summer!
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 03:02:38 PM
10 was reduced to 6 because Everton said their error was inadvertent and that was accepted on appeal.
The benchmark for a deliberate breach would still be 10.
The appeals also stated that 6 should be the benchmark due to there not being any precedent in the Prem, so they should have looked at the EFL's punishment points for the same breach of finances as the guide mark. I think the "inadvertent" decision might have been to stop the other clubs who might sue (not sure if any have) from being able to use that in court, especially as the PL gave them the option to.
Post by: paul_e on March 05, 2024, 03:03:09 PM
The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital expenditure on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a twenty home game season..
Honestly, as much an extra £10m-ish a year would be lovely, it's not going to make a serious dent in catching up with the teams regularly in the top 6. We're behind all of these teams by £100m+ in revenue terms. By all means lets grow the match-day revenue, and a bigger stadium definitely has benefits beyond just more ticket sales, but we're only going to compete long term by increasing our income away from the pitch.
This is why I still think the cancelling of the North Stand redev is about them looking bigger. If we go ahead with that development we pretty much lock ourselves into the same site, same pitch placement, etc. So an extra £10m a year becomes most of the improvement we can get, with maybe a few million on top for work with the Doug Ellis Stand.
If the owners don't think that's enough to make things up on those around us and it limits our options to add more value into the ground then I can see the logic in thinking it's better to cancel and look for an alternative that might see a much bigger increase. With us taking on the funding from a company dedicated to running stadiums, etc I think that'much more likely than the idea that they've just decided to do nothing.
I get that it will take longer and mean a few more seasons of struggling to compete but you just don't sepnd the sort of money involved in the North Stand if you already have plans to do something else.
Post by: VillaTim on March 05, 2024, 03:10:21 PM
This may have been answered multiple times already....but why did we buy Rogers in January if we are as tight to the mat on FFP as it is being reported? 50m on Diaby last summer, did we really need to??Come May i'd get Diaby packaged up and shipped to Saudi if they are still interested . Thats assuming we need to make some big sales.
The thought of having to sell Luiz or Ramsey after qualifying for the CL is beyond depressing. We won't get better by selling our best players. There was me hoping we could get Grealish or a player of his quality in this summer!
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 03:15:32 PM
This may have been answered multiple times already....but why did we buy Rogers in January if we are as tight to the mat on FFP as it is being reported? 50m on Diaby last summer, did we really need to??
The thought of having to sell Luiz or Ramsey after qualifying for the CL is beyond depressing. We won't get better by selling our best players. There was me hoping we could get Grealish or a player of his quality in this summer!
Because we are not that tight? Until we know what deductibles from the loss total we could be anywhere from 5 to 50mil under the loss having an affect on PSR.
And whilst I wouldn't want to lose Luiz (Ramsey will depend if he takes his glass feet off), we have seen teams bigger then us sell really good players and bring in as good, if not better for the overall team. If we don't replace them because of funding issues, then it becomes a problem.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 03:17:07 PM
This may have been answered multiple times already....but why did we buy Rogers in January if we are as tight to the mat on FFP as it is being reported? 50m on Diaby last summer, did we really need to??Come May i'd get Diaby packaged up and shipped to Saudi if they are still interested . Thats assuming we need to make some big sales.
The thought of having to sell Luiz or Ramsey after qualifying for the CL is beyond depressing. We won't get better by selling our best players. There was me hoping we could get Grealish or a player of his quality in this summer!
Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 05, 2024, 03:17:33 PM
The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital expenditure on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a twenty home game season..
Honestly, as much an extra £10m-ish a year would be lovely, it's not going to make a serious dent in catching up with the teams regularly in the top 6. We're behind all of these teams by £100m+ in revenue terms. By all means lets grow the match-day revenue, and a bigger stadium definitely has benefits beyond just more ticket sales, but we're only going to compete long term by increasing our income away from the pitch.
This is why I still think the cancelling of the North Stand redev is about them looking bigger. If we go ahead with that development we pretty much lock ourselves into the same site, same pitch placement, etc. So an extra £10m a year becomes most of the improvement we can get, with maybe a few million on top for work with the Doug Ellis Stand.
If the owners don't think that's enough to make things up on those around us and it limits our options to add more value into the ground then I can see the logic in thinking it's better to cancel and look for an alternative that might see a much bigger increase. With us taking on the funding from a company dedicated to running stadiums, etc I think that'much more likely than the idea that they've just decided to do nothing.
I get that it will take longer and mean a few more seasons of struggling to compete but you just don't sepnd the sort of money involved in the North Stand if you already have plans to do something else.
£10 million a season probably isn't remotely close to the uplift we would be looking at from the North Stand though - single adult match tickets are already more than £50 a pop for most games. The work for the new stand was going to cater for far higher corporate and GA+ numbers and included a redevelopment of Trinity Road, so I would hazard a guess that the club would be aiming for an uplift of £20 million+ a season.
The more I think about Heck's words now the more it makes sense following the latest figures. When he is saying 10k seats was too many too soon, it wasn't that we wouldn't sell them, it was that we wouldn't sell them at the price required. A couple more years of squeezed demand (potentially together with Champions League football), and I am betting he expects to be able to put ticket prices through the roof. I also wouldn't be surprised if the price of memberships doubles or triples this year.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 03:20:04 PM
I expect you could point to times he should have definitely scored and we didn't get any points, and I could point to ones where he setup up other players who didn't score so that would probably even it out.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 05, 2024, 03:22:19 PM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
It would be worse if it were a £150m loss.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 03:22:42 PM
"A manager needs his own players." What about the ones that just coach the players they've got/are given?
"You don't improve by selling your best players." Well, there are lots of teams to have done just that.
"If you don't sign players every window you'll go backwards as a club." Just total horseshit.
I have no evidence, but I think the importance of transfers was talked up over the decades by managers with sticky fingers, and now we're stuck with the obscene situation we see today.
Post by: rooboy316 on March 05, 2024, 03:30:17 PM
Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount? Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.
I think Juventus and Barcelona did something akin to this with swapping two players Pjanic and Arthur. Don't know if that loophole was closed afterward.
Haven’t we done similarly, albeit smarter/less dodgy? E.g. sell Archer, book pure profit, buy Rogers and amortise the fee over length of contract.
Obviously in terms of attributes they aren’t like for like, but financially we achieve the outcomes you propose.
Post by: VillaTim on March 05, 2024, 03:43:03 PM
That is a fair point, we'd probably take a loss on him.This may have been answered multiple times already....but why did we buy Rogers in January if we are as tight to the mat on FFP as it is being reported? 50m on Diaby last summer, did we really need to??Come May i'd get Diaby packaged up and shipped to Saudi if they are still interested . Thats assuming we need to make some big sales.
The thought of having to sell Luiz or Ramsey after qualifying for the CL is beyond depressing. We won't get better by selling our best players. There was me hoping we could get Grealish or a player of his quality in this summer!
Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?
Post by: Skerra on March 05, 2024, 03:48:30 PM
Post by: danno on March 05, 2024, 03:53:03 PM
What better way for the PL to deduct us points so we can’t get top 4/5. We all know that the likelihood as they wouldn’t want manure not getting a European place. So, most likely outcome is they deduct us 10 points and give them to Manure, not for any other reason that they wouldn’t want the media darlings to miss out!
They would have had to have charged us by now. So take a deep breath and relax.
Post by: Risso on March 05, 2024, 03:54:00 PM
Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?
About £14m profit, and then you'd save his wages of £6.7m a year, so in the first year, £20m.
Post by: VillaTim on March 05, 2024, 03:58:31 PM
That seems ok.
Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?
About £14m profit, and then you'd save his wages of £6.7m a year, so in the first year, £20m.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 04:00:44 PM
Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?
About £14m profit, and then you'd save his wages of £6.7m a year, so in the first year, £20m.
Doesn't that mean for PSR, he has only cost us those figues as well?
Post by: simon ward 50 on March 05, 2024, 04:02:44 PM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
They're not as bad as Everton?
Post by: Dave on March 05, 2024, 04:04:12 PM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
They're not as bad as Everton?
It gives us something to semi-coherently bicker about while things on the pitch are going well?
Post by: DeKuip on March 05, 2024, 04:06:47 PM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
It would be worse if it were a £150m loss.
Come the end of May this season will have bankrupted a few of us.
Post by: Stu82 on March 05, 2024, 04:09:41 PM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
[/quote
The owners know what they are doing.
We are building a strong squad and improving the turnover, through European football, ticket prices, corporate, sponsorship.
Looking forward to seeing the accounts.
There you go positive.
Post by: nick harper on March 05, 2024, 04:10:23 PM
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 04:11:43 PM
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 05, 2024, 04:14:18 PM
This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
It's the absolute pisstake that is Man City that is the root of the issue for everyone. The sooner they are dealt with the better.
Post by: lovejoy on March 05, 2024, 04:17:19 PM
Isn't the problem with FFP the timing of profit and losses. If any club has a fantastic year profit wise they will almost certainly fail FFP if they attempt to spend that profit. E.g
300m profit
200m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
When the large profit drops out they will almost certainly fail FFP. It is even worse if they don't spend the money in the following year as they will fail FFP for more years than just one.
300m profit
20m loss
20m loss
200m loss
20 m loss
20 m loss
Am I missing something
the lumpy profits/losses arise on selling players (pure profit for selling a freebie, or big loss on selling an expensive player before their cost has been fully amortised (or I guess paying off a crap manager and team for the rest of their contracts). Otherwise, generally the costs are predictable, spread the transfer fees and include the wages. In your example we would only make the big loss is we chose to sell an expensive player for below book value. take the Grealish money, is we gave those 3 we bought 5 year contracts the £100m is spread at £20m a year for 5 years. It's manageable and predictable.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 04:20:56 PM
There does seem to be a lot of confusion out there.
This is my laymans assessment (sorry Sexual). The 22/23 accounts are both the third, second and first year of a 3 year rolling FFP period.
2023 - For the 3 year period ending 2023, Dogtanian has confirmed the key point, if we had breached FFP for that 3 year period we would already have been charged like Everton and Forest.
2024 - obviously last years loss makes complying with the 3 year period ending this June much more difficult - and that is where the speculation that we will have to sell by end June has come from. Personally, I think that is highly unlikely as I just can't see us having made the Jan signings if that was true. As many have pointed out our spending has gone up, but so has our income. It may ultimately rest on our league position and progress un the UCL, but if we've left ourselves that tight then someone needs shooting.
2025 - IF we do end up selling a major player after June this year, I assume it will be to mainly to allow us more manoeuvrability to do some work on the squad for next season, as opposed to it being a fire sale.
You are kind of right, but I think you're underestimating the challenge this current year is going to pose.
Looking at twitter and the discussions around this, I think there is a bit of confusion over the term "Villa have got FFP problems".
Some people seem to think that means problems right now, ie that we are in breach - and we are not. So, strictly speaking, right now it isn't a problem, because as you said, of the nature of the three year rolling calculation.
The figures for the 3 years in these accounts are +300k, -£37m, -£120m. After all the deductions of allowables, we're inside the £105m.
Very good post paulie. I’ve only edited to point out more clearly that you’ve got those figures in the wrong order. It should read -£37m, +£300k, -£120m. I think it’s worth pointing out that the next figure to drop out of the three year period is the £37m loss rather than the small Joe sale profit.
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2024, 04:23:00 PM
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 04:31:47 PM
I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.
Part of the reasoning for the reduction in Everton’s punishment was that it couldn’t be more severe than the mandatory 9 point punishment for going into administration.
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 05, 2024, 04:36:22 PM
I'd rather this financial issue didn't exist, but there's no evidence of irregularities or noncompliance, and points can still be subtracted if running at a loss. The ownership group is highly clever and capable, so I'm relieved, but any misinformation or poor advisors, no matter how slight, would have a significant impact on the playing staff right now and lead to losing players through sales.
I read and agree that Man City has destroyed this entire competition, which is really frustrating and disheartening when the football should be the most important, especially given our season and what they do with their outstanding record is a mockery
In actuality, it is the financial PSR that is affecting the beautiful game.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but if other clubs are being cited, it's just a matter of time before we are for points and maybe they do it to stop us getting in the Champions League which would be unbelievable and would have to be challenged. I just can't see that if we don't reach the Champions League and/or sell key assets we can't ensure sustainable finances.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2024, 04:43:01 PM
10 was reduced to 6 because Everton said their error was inadvertent and that was accepted on appeal.
The benchmark for a deliberate breach would still be 10.
The appeal committee specifically stated it had to be a less severe punishment than that for going into administration (9 points).
Post by: AlexAlexCropley on March 05, 2024, 04:51:42 PM
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2024, 04:52:25 PM
What is stopping me paying £25m for a pie and a pint ? Would this alleviate the bottom line? Hypothetically that is.
I doubt they'd discount the prices that much.
Post by: curiousorange on March 05, 2024, 04:53:41 PM
What is stopping me paying £25m for a pie and a pint ? Would this alleviate the bottom line? Hypothetically that is.
I doubt they'd discount the prices that much.
Nice
Post by: paul_e on March 05, 2024, 04:58:25 PM
What is stopping me paying £25m for a pie and a pint ? Would this alleviate the bottom line? Hypothetically that is.
Sadly that's effectively the loophole that Man City used (but with massively overvalued sponsorship deals) and it led to a 'fair market value' clause that covers anything that could be seen as a donation rather than a payment for a service.
Post by: curiousorange on March 05, 2024, 04:58:33 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 05:07:22 PM
What is stopping me paying £25m for a pie and a pint ? Would this alleviate the bottom line? Hypothetically that is.
The insanely long queue of people in front of you waiting to pay a fiver and the glacial slow movement of the people behind the bar, which closes on kick off.
Post by: Drummond on March 05, 2024, 05:12:37 PM
I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
The average fucking spend would be so much more if they could only sort the fucking service out.
Pay staff triple what the current lot are on and you'll attract way better staff. They will more than triple the spend and the club would be quids in without even upping prices.
Post by: itbrvilla on March 05, 2024, 05:15:02 PM
Spot on. Last few games I've been to I've wanted to grab a bottle of Purity Pale but the queue literally stays stationary for 5-10 mins. Ridiculous situation.I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
The average fucking spend would be so much more if they could only sort the fucking service out.
Pay staff triple what the current lot are on and you'll attract way better staff. They will more than triple the spend and the club would be quids in without even upping prices.
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2024, 05:17:44 PM
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 05:22:00 PM
I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
There’s just one problem with his assumptions there, which is the totally inadequate facilities and service which massively depress the spend per customer. I’m sure they probably factor this in but still, I’m slightly sceptical that the current numbers are in anyway reflective of what could be spent if they sorted the decades long underinvestment in supporter facilities. I might have been attracted to a GA+ type offer if they’d built the new stand but for the moment my money stays in my pocket as the UG and TV for me don’t seem worth it.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 05, 2024, 05:24:58 PM
Agreed, it seems very short sighted to judge the appetite for this by two poorly executed red-herrings in the Holte End. Do they actually ever speak to fans?I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
There’s just one problem with his assumptions there, which is the totally inadequate facilities and service which massively depress the spend per customer. I’m sure they probably factor this in but still, I’m slightly sceptical that the current numbers are in anyway reflective of what could be spent if they sorted the decades long underinvestment in supporter facilities. I might have been attracted to a GA+ type offer if they’d built the new stand but for the moment my money stays in my pocket as the UG and TV for me don’t seem worth it.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 05, 2024, 05:27:18 PM
It’s not that we won’t spend, they’re just making it as difficult as possible.
Post by: Baldy on March 05, 2024, 05:27:48 PM
Spot on. Last few games I've been to I've wanted to grab a bottle of Purity Pale but the queue literally stays stationary for 5-10 mins. Ridiculous situation.I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
The average fucking spend would be so much more if they could only sort the fucking service out.
Pay staff triple what the current lot are on and you'll attract way better staff. They will more than triple the spend and the club would be quids in without even upping prices.
AlexAlexCropley was probably paying in cash,
Post by: AV82EC on March 05, 2024, 05:29:56 PM
They want to sell extras to people they’re attracting in to see a match. But the only way you can make sure you can purchase those extras is to miss a chunk of the match you actually came to see.
It’s not that we won’t spend, they’re just making it as difficult as possible.
Yep spot on.
Post by: danno on March 05, 2024, 05:30:55 PM
Again from the networking, but there is a massive turnover of untrained staff each match. Rarely the same staff each match…
Understandably so, given that in a bad season it’s potentially only 19 days a year. Even getting them in at 9am, they only have a few hours to practice before there’s a group of frustrated, sighing, eye rolling, swearing, middle aged baldies, passive aggressively tapping cards on counters, and complaining about the plastic pint glasses.
Anyone who does that job and comes back for the second game, should seriously look into refereeing. ;D
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2024, 05:50:55 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 05, 2024, 05:57:39 PM
Amusing little convo on there where one of them complains that Southampton had their losses broadcast on Sky & we hadn't, at that point. Another poster mentions its on the BBC & many other outlets. But apparently, thats due to AI, lol.
Fucking simpletons...
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2024, 06:07:02 PM
Again from the networking, but there is a massive turnover of untrained staff each match. Rarely the same staff each match…
Understandably so, given that in a bad season it’s potentially only 19 days a year. Even getting them in at 9am, they only have a few hours to practice before there’s a group of frustrated, sighing, eye rolling, swearing, middle aged baldies, passive aggressively tapping cards on counters, and complaining about the plastic pint glasses.
Anyone who does that job and comes back for the second game, should seriously look into refereeing. ;D
That was my experience when I did it once at Carrow Road as a student. We were told to report an hour before kick-off, had the experience you describe with the angry old baldies, and I didn't go back. That was more than two decades ago but, apart from the prices, going to a match is largely the same now as it was then.
Post by: brontebilly on March 05, 2024, 06:39:55 PM
This may have been answered multiple times already....but why did we buy Rogers in January if we are as tight to the mat on FFP as it is being reported? 50m on Diaby last summer, did we really need to??
The thought of having to sell Luiz or Ramsey after qualifying for the CL is beyond depressing. We won't get better by selling our best players. There was me hoping we could get Grealish or a player of his quality in this summer!
And whilst I wouldn't want to lose Luiz (Ramsey will depend if he takes his glass feet off), we have seen teams bigger then us sell really good players and bring in as good, if not better for the overall team. If we don't replace them because of funding issues, then it becomes a problem.
Recent memory at Villa Park would suggest the contrary. We were lost without Grealish until Emery came. Replacing Milner with Stevie Ireland, Downing with Nzogbia, Benteke with Justhead? This isn't like Real Madrid replacing Casemiro with a couple of French hotshots. It would be very difficult to replace Luiz for example as he is critical to how we play. Same for Watkins, Konsa, Ramsey, McGinn. We don't seem to have any/many academy prospects capable of stepping up to that level either.
I'm trying to think of some successful examples where we moved on key players without impacting the team much, MON did a good job replacing Barry with Milner but Milner was already with us so it was more of a positional change. Gregory was it replaced likes of Bosnich, Southgate and Ugo with James, Mellberg and Alpay but the team was starting to decline from memory. Yorke with Dublin another one but again we were further away from competing.
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2024, 06:46:08 PM
David Platt
Post by: curiousorange on March 05, 2024, 06:53:09 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 07:00:13 PM
That's pretty pathetic by comparison to other clubs.
GA+ seats, expensive food offerings and more expensive season tickets all round are not going to boost that enough.
I tells you, this whole situation, plus Comcast, stinks of new stadium.
Post by: curiousorange on March 05, 2024, 07:02:44 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 07:14:53 PM
It might be time to start making our peace with that possibility.
Can you imagine, if we did announce a new stadium, how fucking irritating the "ooh, this is my design for a new shirt, what do you think?" bunch would be, given a whole stadium to work on, plus the empowerment of AI graphics?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2024, 07:15:46 PM
That SHA forum is fucking terrible.
They are terrible people, deserving a terrible forum.
Post by: IFWaters on March 05, 2024, 07:19:28 PM
Matchday revenue - £16.1mI agree. Also the noises about transport difficulties etc just feel like getting the excuses in early. I wonder if Comcast will develop a stadium, somewhere easier to get to and from, get to use it for Taylor Swift gigs etc in the off season.
That's pretty pathetic by comparison to other clubs.
GA+ seats, expensive food offerings and more expensive season tickets all round are not going to boost that enough.
I tells you, this whole situation, plus Comcast, stinks of new stadium.
Set aside the terribleness that would be moving away from Villa Park but there is possibly something even worse in the wings ....
2 sets of owners in the city, both looking at how to develop their grounds....it can't be can it? Ground share with the scum ? 😯
Post by: danno on March 05, 2024, 07:24:18 PM
Post by: curiousorange on March 05, 2024, 07:30:22 PM
It might be time to start making our peace with that possibility.
Can you imagine, if we did announce a new stadium, how fucking irritating the "ooh, this is my design for a new shirt, what do you think?" bunch would be, given a whole stadium to work on, plus the empowerment of AI graphics?
The design that would get the most votes would be the one which is Villa Park, but it holds 80,000 and it's next to the Bullring.
Post by: VillaTim on March 05, 2024, 07:32:54 PM
It might be time to start making our peace with that possibility.At least I will then be able to combine a run to the tip (Bickenhill*) with a home game thus killing two birds with one proverbial stone.
* By the NEC.
Post by: SoccerHQ on March 05, 2024, 07:45:37 PM
He stays fit for a whole season with CL behind him and also probably 5-6 England caps and with his usual prem goals and assists you're talking 60-70m bracket no problem if not more.
Would be disappointing but it's hard to see how we come the other side of these losses as it's a big ask to keep on qualifying for CL.
People ask how Spurs do it but they were in CL every single season from 2016 up to 2020 and now have the Kane money + stadium starting to generate great profit so they're in a very strong position if Levy dosen't make any rash decisions.
Post by: SoccerHQ on March 05, 2024, 07:48:24 PM
The precedents for us being able to replace good with better aren't many, but then it all depends on who has the credit card, doesn't it?
We're clearly going for potential now with Monchi's influence. Not sure who Rogers replaces long term but let's hope he can step up. Got a good feeling on the Serb RB so if he can do well in the cups early next season Cash will probably be sold at some point.
We've just got to be careful we don't go full on 2011-13 again when we just flooded the whole team with cheap imports from abroad and the lower leagues. You still need a core of 5-6 top level players to manage the transition if you have to sell a Luiz or Ramsey in the near future.
Post by: frankmosswasmyuncle on March 05, 2024, 07:48:59 PM
They want to sell extras to people they’re attracting in to see a match. But the only way you can make sure you can purchase those extras is to miss a chunk of the match you actually came to see.I used to buy a coffee/hot chocolate before every game - I'm usually driving at least 3 other people to the game and back - but the queues in the Trinity for the ONE coffee outlet takes at least 40 minutes. So, feck it. I'd rather have a chat with my mates and suck a Murray Mint!
It’s not that we won’t spend, they’re just making it as difficult as possible.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 07:50:35 PM
Recent memory at Villa Park would suggest the contrary. We were lost without Grealish until Emery came. Replacing Milner with Stevie Ireland, Downing with Nzogbia, Benteke with Justhead? This isn't like Real Madrid replacing Casemiro with a couple of French hotshots. It would be very difficult to replace Luiz for example as he is critical to how we play. Same for Watkins, Konsa, Ramsey, McGinn. We don't seem to have any/many academy prospects capable of stepping up to that level either.
I'm trying to think of some successful examples where we moved on key players without impacting the team much, MON did a good job replacing Barry with Milner but Milner was already with us so it was more of a positional change. Gregory was it replaced likes of Bosnich, Southgate and Ugo with James, Mellberg and Alpay but the team was starting to decline from memory. Yorke with Dublin another one but again we were further away from competing.
The highlighted bit you seem to gloss over is why I'm less worried about finding someone. We thought we would struggle all season without Mings, Torres has shown we didn't miss him as much and actually added stuff to our game we didn't even realise we were missing. Granted when he is out, we do drop several levels, but that is the current nature of the beast of the squad depth. (Although I think Lenglet is getting better each game).
But people also seem to forger that Luiz , Watkins, Ramsey, Konsa and McGinn were all playing in a side that finished 17th (with a last day point keeping us up), 11th and 14th and were flirting with relegation early last season. All but Ramsey were told "they were not fit to wear the shirt" and "I would sell him now". So why do we think Emery couldn't buy currently "lesser" players and mould them into the world class players we currently have?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 05, 2024, 07:52:08 PM
It might be time to start making our peace with that possibility.
Post by: claret+blue ed on March 05, 2024, 08:30:24 PM
Post by: Beard82 on March 05, 2024, 08:41:05 PM
Did Purslow say our way bill was half that of the sky 6?This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
It's the absolute pisstake that is Man City that is the root of the issue for everyone. The sooner they are dealt with the better.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2024, 09:16:08 PM
Pretty certain we sell Jacob Ramsey sooner or later.
He stays fit for a whole season with CL behind him and also probably 5-6 England caps and with his usual prem goals and assists you're talking 60-70m bracket no problem if not more.
Would be disappointing but it's hard to see how we come the other side of these losses as it's a big ask to keep on qualifying for CL.
People ask how Spurs do it but they were in CL every single season from 2016 up to 2020 and now have the Kane money + stadium starting to generate great profit so they're in a very strong position if Levy dosen't make any rash decisions.
Having 10m Korean fans also helos due to Son's success.
Post by: Rory on March 05, 2024, 09:33:04 PM
It might be time to start making our peace with that possibility.
There's no need for that!
Post by: brontebilly on March 05, 2024, 10:10:57 PM
Recent memory at Villa Park would suggest the contrary. We were lost without Grealish until Emery came. Replacing Milner with Stevie Ireland, Downing with Nzogbia, Benteke with Justhead? This isn't like Real Madrid replacing Casemiro with a couple of French hotshots. It would be very difficult to replace Luiz for example as he is critical to how we play. Same for Watkins, Konsa, Ramsey, McGinn. We don't seem to have any/many academy prospects capable of stepping up to that level either.
I'm trying to think of some successful examples where we moved on key players without impacting the team much, MON did a good job replacing Barry with Milner but Milner was already with us so it was more of a positional change. Gregory was it replaced likes of Bosnich, Southgate and Ugo with James, Mellberg and Alpay but the team was starting to decline from memory. Yorke with Dublin another one but again we were further away from competing.
But people also seem to forger that Luiz , Watkins, Ramsey, Konsa and McGinn were all playing in a side that finished 17th (with a last day point keeping us up), 11th and 14th and were flirting with relegation early last season. All but Ramsey were told "they were not fit to wear the shirt" and "I would sell him now". So why do we think Emery couldn't buy currently "lesser" players and mould them into the world class players we currently have?
Those five were all capable of far more than they were delivering, Arsenal were keen on Luiz for example. Sure some of them took a lot of criticism, some valid, some definitely not given the clown of a coach they had. I'd lost a bit of faith in Konsa for sure, his lull lasted well into Emery's reign from memory. It's to Emery's great credit he turned around so many careers. Bailey is maybe the biggest turnaround.
But there's only so much Emery can do with far less resources than our competitors, especially if one of our crown jewels gets sold this summer (could that upset the dynamic of the group like what happened when Milner left). There's only so much success you can get from signings from free transfers and loans like Tielemans, Lenglet and Zaniolo, if that's the likely market for us next summer.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 10:20:04 PM
Lenglet and Zaniolo were rushed in loans to replace two seriously injured players in the squad. As I mentioned, I don't think Lenglet is that bad now he is finding his feet, and Zani didn't work and is being sent back. I would suggest players we do want in would be more investigated for how they will work for us (or at least give us some reasonable squad depth which Lenglet has definitely done). And Tielemans hasn't done too badly for us, but could do better.
Post by: curiousorange on March 05, 2024, 10:25:22 PM
Post by: VillaTim on March 05, 2024, 10:32:54 PM
Post by: brontebilly on March 05, 2024, 10:37:13 PM
Lenglet and Zaniolo were rushed in loans to replace two seriously injured players in the squad. As I mentioned, I don't think Lenglet is that bad now he is finding his feet, and Zani didn't work and is being sent back. I would suggest players we do want in would be more investigated for how they will work for us (or at least give us some reasonable squad depth which Lenglet has definitely done). And Tielemans hasn't done too badly for us, but could do better.
Agreed on Lenglet, far better than I expected and becoming a better option than Carlos. Jury still out on Tielemans for me. Loads of ability but lack of athleticism a real problem when he plays in our midfield four. Hopefully saving goals and assists for the final stretch of the season, we need him to. Monchi worked with Zaniolo previously but he has been a disaster really.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 10:39:15 PM
I dunno, I'd dispute that. Milner's last game, the demolition of West Ham, he absolutely ran the show and went off to a standing ovation. He was a huge loss to replace at that time, and a smallish hill I'll die on is that we didn't adequately replace him until (probably) McGinn came in.
But there was lots of other crapness going on at the time involving managers, owners and the changes in players.
Unless Emery walks if he is being forced to sell someone he doesn't want to, I just don't get the parallels (apart from once we replaced a good player so we can never do it again).
All the times others have quoted as well, we didn't have anyone to choose replacements but limited managers, a head scout, and an owner who penny pinched. We have a lot more people on board nowadays.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2024, 10:41:43 PM
Lenglet and Zaniolo were rushed in loans to replace two seriously injured players in the squad. As I mentioned, I don't think Lenglet is that bad now he is finding his feet, and Zani didn't work and is being sent back. I would suggest players we do want in would be more investigated for how they will work for us (or at least give us some reasonable squad depth which Lenglet has definitely done). And Tielemans hasn't done too badly for us, but could do better.
Agreed on Lenglet, far better than I expected and becoming a better option than Carlos. Jury still out on Tielemans for me. Loads of ability but lack of athleticism a real problem when he plays in our midfield four. Hopefully saving goals and assists for the final stretch of the season, we need him to. Monchi worked with Zaniolo previously but he has been a disaster really.
Which is why he probably suggested him but he was still a quickly suggested replacement for Buendia (and Ramsey with the injury) and I don't think was really a serious prospect for long term unless he did come good.
Post by: eamonn on March 05, 2024, 11:41:25 PM
Pretty certain we sell Jacob Ramsey sooner or later.
He stays fit for a whole season with CL behind him and also probably 5-6 England caps and with his usual prem goals and assists you're talking 60-70m bracket no problem if not more.
Would be disappointing but it's hard to see how we come the other side of these losses as it's a big ask to keep on qualifying for CL.
People ask how Spurs do it but they were in CL every single season from 2016 up to 2020 and now have the Kane money + stadium starting to generate great profit so they're in a very strong position if Levy dosen't make any rash decisions.
Having 10m Korean fans also helos due to Son's success.
All you see on tv close-ups behind the goalposts at Spurs stadium is grinning Koreans shaking their flags.
Post by: Rory on March 06, 2024, 12:10:31 AM
Pretty certain we sell Jacob Ramsey sooner or later.
He stays fit for a whole season with CL behind him and also probably 5-6 England caps and with his usual prem goals and assists you're talking 60-70m bracket no problem if not more.
Would be disappointing but it's hard to see how we come the other side of these losses as it's a big ask to keep on qualifying for CL.
People ask how Spurs do it but they were in CL every single season from 2016 up to 2020 and now have the Kane money + stadium starting to generate great profit so they're in a very strong position if Levy dosen't make any rash decisions.
Having 10m Korean fans also helos due to Son's success.
All you see on tv close-ups behind the goalposts at Spurs stadium is grinning Koreans shaking their flags.
I was going to comment on the other matches thread after watching MOTD. I kind of worried my language might appear racist, but on reflection I don't think it is*...
Does South Korea switch out the lights whenever Tottenham play at home? They are everywhere! There must be 5k at every home game.
*Those damned slippery, slanty-eyed devils 😉
I wouldn't have thought South Korean tourism to the UK was *that* high, and it's a long way to go to watch someone who already plays for your national team.
I was wondering the other day, given the demographics of Birmingham and England as a whole, the number of people we get from Jamaican backgrounds coming to see Leon.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 12:18:30 AM
Post by: Rory on March 06, 2024, 12:44:18 AM
Just no.
To whom?
Post by: Axl Rose on March 06, 2024, 01:07:24 AM
As for the 'slippery slanty-eyed devils' remark...hmm. Rubbish winky face thing or not, what's the point?
I wasn't going to comment as I can't be arsed, but sigh.
Post by: Rory on March 06, 2024, 01:24:16 AM
New Malden, perhaps, Rory? There's a pretty big Korean population in the UK, I think. Students, workers etc.
As for the 'slippery slanty-eyed devils' remark...hmm. Rubbish winky face thing or not, what's the point?
I wasn't going to comment as I can't be arsed, but sigh.
It was a joke based on the premise of me withholding my original comment on the worry that it might be racist...followed by an obviously racist comment.
I apologise, but it was meant to be fully cloaked in irony. In the same way a joke about pale-skinned, fat-headed Irishmen would be - I can't help being a pink blob with eyes that are too big and with a head shaped like a potato.
I meant no insult to your country or family, Axl. I hope my apology and the context will convince you of that.
Assuming you will forgive my attempt at humour, my questions were genuine.
Why are so many South Koreans in London when Tottenham play, and why are we unable to tap into the huge Jaimaican community in Birmingham when we have a Jamaican international playing so brilliantly for us?
Post by: Axl Rose on March 06, 2024, 01:43:30 AM
It's been a while since I've read anything on here or posted, and your post was the first I came across this morning.
No offence caused. My dad is half Scottish half English, my mum half Welsh, half Irish. I had the misfortune of being born in Leicester. Although my wife is from the northern wilds of Hokkaido, some Japanese don't believe this is even part of Japan haha. Our little girl, or so I'm quite often told, 'looks like a foreigner', whatever that means 😂
Not quite sure about the Korean thing. I lived there for three years, and back then they were obsessed with Park Ji Sung and Man Utd. The Japanese also go wild for any sportsperson doing well abroad. I don't really get it as it would be like me ditching Villa to follow Michael Owen when he played for Madrid, as a number of Koreans and Japanese I know completely stop following their favourite teams from home. Maybe it's a sense of pride? God only knows! To be fair to the Koreans, they're football mad, whereas the Japanese only seem to be during world cups etc, plus baseball is still king here. Maybe.
Is football massive in Jamaica? I have no idea to be honest.
Post by: Rory on March 06, 2024, 01:55:43 AM
Sorry mate. On reflection, I understand! I was being the usual misery arse. My mistake. I hope you'll forgive my rubbish response.
It's been a while since I've read anything on here or posted, and your post was the first I came across this morning.
No offence caused. My dad is half Scottish half English, my mum half Welsh, half Irish. I had the misfortune of being born in Leicester. Although my wife is from the northern wilds of Hokkaido, some Japanese don't believe this is even part of Japan haha. Our little girl, or so I'm quite often told, 'looks like a foreigner', whatever that means 😂
Not quite sure about the Korean thing. I lived there for three years, and back then they were obsessed with Park Ji Sung and Man Utd. The Japanese also go wild for any sportsperson doing well abroad. I don't really get it as it would be like me ditching Villa to follow Michael Owen when he played for Madrid, as a number of Koreans and Japanese I know completely stop following their favourite teams from home. Maybe it's a sense of pride? God only knows! To be fair to the Koreans, they're football mad, whereas the Japanese only seem to be during world cups etc, plus baseball is still king here. Maybe.
Is football massive in Jamaica? I have no idea to be honest.
No, my fault entirely, mate.
Yeah, Park Ji Sung was one of the players I was thinking of. I know there was talk of him adding a few hundred thousand to the TV audience, but I don't recall thousands of people at Old Trafford there specifically to support him in the same way there are thousands at the Tottenham ground purely for Son.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on March 06, 2024, 02:23:17 AM
I've only ever known 3 Jamaicans really well and none of them gave a shit about football, so that's my incredible input there. Anecdotes don't make data and all that.
*I had a rougamo for the first time from a tiny place and fuck me it was good.
Post by: Nev on March 06, 2024, 06:13:38 AM
I don't think we can ever match the "where the fuck did 20k extra fans come from?" that has happened in London. Birmingham is about to enter a golden age of shit too given the Council cuts.
Post by: sid1964 on March 06, 2024, 07:20:08 AM
Looking at other clubs that we are trying to compete with to get top 4, Newcastle, Chelsea, United - these clubs are also looking to move their stadiums or totally rebuilding their current one.
We cannot have 89% of our revenue being spent on salaries, it is unsustainable - listening UTV podcast, one of the guys on the show said "if we had just rebuilt the North Stand, it would have been like sticking a plaster on a break in a dam"
Spurs who have a larger wage bill than ourselves currently spend 47% of their income on wages.
Hopefully our current owners have a plan for us to compete at the top end of the Premier League but for many seasons to come.
Post by: VillaTim on March 06, 2024, 07:32:48 AM
Post by: itmustbe_it is! on March 06, 2024, 08:10:23 AM
I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
The average fucking spend would be so much more if they could only sort the fucking service out.
Pay staff triple what the current lot are on and you'll attract way better staff. They will more than triple the spend and the club would be quids in without even upping prices.
I'd be interested to know whether there is any difference between the spend by supporters in , for example, the Lower Holte, where in my experience it is easy to get food and drink pre match and the quality seems reasonable , and other areas which are still as rubbish for getting served.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 06, 2024, 08:32:34 AM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
I’ll give is a go, here are some positives:
1. We have rich owners that aren’t about to do runner and put the club in jeopardy so essentially the club is safe.
2. We must spend every penny of the £105m allowable losses in every three year period to maximise our chances of growth.
3. These figures largely relate to the Gerrard debacle where we were often 17th in the league.
4. Things have improved since, certainly income wise.
5. The burden of his transfer strategy will be largely flushed be through soon.
6. We now have a manager that is increasing the value of 80% of the squad.
To put it another way, the club is being as ambitious as the rules allow. Furthermore, just imagine how bad the figures would look with Gerrard in charge, languishing in the bottom half and with no sellable assets.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 06, 2024, 09:02:13 AM
Sustained years of Success on the pitch will bring in more revenue . It's not like we can catch Spurs revenue overnight , it's a 10 - 15 year thing / plan that's required.
How much does hosting the NFL games boost their revenue?
Post by: Baldy on March 06, 2024, 09:21:20 AM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
I’ll give is a go, here are some positives:
1. We have rich owners that aren’t about to do runner and put the club in jeopardy so essentially the club is safe.
2. We must spend every penny of the £105m allowable losses in every three year period to maximise our chances of growth.
3. These figures largely relate to the Gerrard debacle where we were often 17th in the league.
4. Things have improved since, certainly income wise.
5. The burden of his transfer strategy will be largely flushed be through soon.
6. We now have a manager that is increasing the value of 80% of the squad.
To put it another way, the club is being as ambitious as the rules allow. Furthermore, just imagine how bad the figures would look with Gerrard in charge, languishing in the bottom half and with no sellable assets.
Very true Dante Lavelli, I would also add the profile of the club seems to be already much higher throughout the world and this can only help on the commercial front.
The Premier League package is massive worldwide, we must be getting much more airtime and now appear in the part of the league tables that are shown (top 6, 8, 10 etc). I was chuffed to see the Ajax forum after the villa draw, they have thrown the towel in already!! Even in Greece, we have been noticed. Long may it continue and be capitalised upon.
Post by: itbrvilla on March 06, 2024, 09:31:24 AM
I spent fuck all in the lower North vs Forest compared to about £25 in the Upper Holte vs Burnley. Purely down to service.I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Just adds to the challenge we face.
I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...
The average fucking spend would be so much more if they could only sort the fucking service out.
Pay staff triple what the current lot are on and you'll attract way better staff. They will more than triple the spend and the club would be quids in without even upping prices.
I'd be interested to know whether there is any difference between the spend by supporters in , for example, the Lower Holte, where in my experience it is easy to get food and drink pre match and the quality seems reasonable , and other areas which are still as rubbish for getting served.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 06, 2024, 09:32:24 AM
Also, someone posted on here that there was an area of North London close to Spurs that houses Europe's largest Korean community. They could come here if we signed someone that appealed to them, we wont be able to afford to attend soon by the sound of it.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 09:35:31 AM
Just no.
To whom?
Whether your post was meant to be tongue in cheek, humorous or whatever, it made me feel uncomfortable. It was unnecessary.
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 09:39:30 AM
Just no.
To whom?
Whether your post was meant to be tongue in cheek, humorous or whatever, it made me feel uncomfortable. It was unnecessary.
It was a crap attempt at a joke that he's already apologised for, so let's just move on.
Post by: brontebilly on March 06, 2024, 09:40:20 AM
Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)
I’ll give is a go, here are some positives:
1. We have rich owners that aren’t about to do runner and put the club in jeopardy so essentially the club is safe.
2. We must spend every penny of the £105m allowable losses in every three year period to maximise our chances of growth.
3. These figures largely relate to the Gerrard debacle where we were often 17th in the league.
4. Things have improved since, certainly income wise.
5. The burden of his transfer strategy will be largely flushed be through soon.
6. We now have a manager that is increasing the value of 80% of the squad.
To put it another way, the club is being as ambitious as the rules allow. Furthermore, just imagine how bad the figures would look with Gerrard in charge, languishing in the bottom half and with no sellable assets.
Gerrard was only in charge for less than 12 months though. For every vanity signing like Coutinho that didn't work out, there was the likes of Kamara who must be a big positive for FFP. If our wage bill did go out of control under his tenure then it's Purslow that was asleep at the wheel.
While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 09:43:28 AM
Just no.
To whom?
Whether your post was meant to be tongue in cheek, humorous or whatever, it made me feel uncomfortable. It was unnecessary.
It was a crap attempt at a joke that he's already apologised for, so let's just move on.
Yeah thanks for that. I was just responding to his post.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 06, 2024, 09:46:42 AM
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 09:48:43 AM
While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.
That's a reason that FFP is seriously flawed. In most other industries, you have to revalue your assets at 'fair value' periodically, so if you have a building rising in value, that gets reflected in the accounts. It doesn't happen with footballers, so we've got Kamara valued at nowt, when in reality to buy a player of his standing we'd be looking at shelling out c. £70m. And you could say the same about Luiz, McGinn, Martinez etc.
Post by: Dick Edwards on March 06, 2024, 09:50:43 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.I agree with this 100%
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 06, 2024, 09:54:08 AM
If the owners do want to compete with them, I just cant see any alternative to moving ground.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 06, 2024, 09:56:46 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.Very good idea, if possibly a bit vulnerable to exploitation and would bring up grey areas like Coutinho who couldn't stay fit. May also create scenarios where we'd be better off declaring a player unfit than loaning him (as we can't get full wages covered) - like Coutinho I'd imagine.
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 06, 2024, 09:56:57 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.I agree with this 100%
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Yes, that seems a very sensible suggestion to me.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 06, 2024, 09:59:55 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.Very good idea, if possibly a bit vulnerable to exploitation and would bring up grey areas like Coutinho who couldn't stay fit. May also create scenarios where we'd be better off declaring a player unfit than loaning him (as we can't get full wages covered) - like Coutinho I'd imagine.
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
The players would soon speak out if they were fit and clubs were saying otherwise. It would jeopardise their international careers for a start. A scenario like Coutinho is one where we just have to suck it up. We made a bad buy, that's it.
Post by: caster troy on March 06, 2024, 10:00:12 AM
I'm hoping we can avoid it by shifting to a new model where our reserves in each position are 'up and comers' either from our youth system or signings with potential, as opposed to players like Dendoncker, Augustinsson, Traore etc who would be on much higher wages. I really like Digne but I can see him being sacrificed, Olsen will probably go, Buendia will be back so no Zaniolo, Mings will be back so no Lenglet. From a wage bill perspective we should hopefully be a lot leaner after the summer. Based on the January signings of the two young full backs and keeper I think we are headed in that direction.
The positive for me is we aren't too far off where we need to be squad wise, without the injuries this season we'd probably still be in the title race. I'm not sure we need to make many signings in the summer.
Post by: Baldy on March 06, 2024, 10:05:04 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.I agree with this 100%
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Yes, that seems a very sensible suggestion to me.
I'm only guessing, but players may be insured by the club against injury and any claims payment would go to the club to be included in FFP. Players could also take out their own private insurance to compensate for loss of revenue as the club is not likely to pay full whack (win bonuses etc).
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 06, 2024, 10:07:43 AM
Post by: eamonn on March 06, 2024, 10:12:20 AM
Now, I think he's an integral part of our squad and I love the way Emery manages his playing time with Moreno's - both offering different qualities and both still getting plenty of minutes on the pitch. Given Digne's age, we wouldn't get much for him and although his wages are still high, our additions and contract renewals since he signed probably mean that there's at least half a dozen earning more. I'd be inclined to keep him if we can.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 10:58:15 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Sorry but that goes against the principle of FFP (P&S), because clubs would be making more of a loss. Other clubs would think it unfair and there would be shenanigans around declaring players unfit etc. as has been suggested.
The rules just need amending.
Post by: OCD on March 06, 2024, 11:00:48 AM
I was unimpressed by Digne from early on, didn't think he did anything to justify his overly-generous salary and was cursing Gerrard's vanity for our over-spending on him.
Now, I think he's an integral part of our squad and I love the way Emery manages his playing time with Moreno's - both offering different qualities and both still getting plenty of minutes on the pitch. Given Digne's age, we wouldn't get much for him and although his wages are still high, our additions and contract renewals since he signed probably mean that there's at least half a dozen earning more. I'd be inclined to keep him if we can.
Surely Gerrard would have only been involved as identifying players he wanted, and then it's up to the club to negotiate fee/wages so it would have been more on Purslow than Gerrard.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 11:04:20 AM
Purslow's suggestion seems fair enough to me, in that owners should put money into escrow to cover all the contractual expenses they may have and meaning clubs wouldn't go out of existence- (and owners with money could still spend). But I'd also add a salary cap to ensure it allowed other clubs to find owners who were prepared to invest.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 06, 2024, 11:10:02 AM
I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.
If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.
Sorry but that goes against the principle of FFP (P&S), because clubs would be making more of a loss. Other clubs would think it unfair and there would be shenanigans around declaring players unfit etc. as has been suggested.
The rules just need amending.
If the principle you're on about is stopping clubs spending themselves into bankruptcy, then you're right. But as no Premier League club has actually gone under, then the rules themselves don't need amending at all as they are working.
The only reason to amend the rules is because the principle we actual want to enforce is that of a level playing field. In which case this would make perfect sense. A club that has worked hard to stay within the rules shouldn't then be derailed by a freak season-ending injury while other clubs can just go out and buy a replacement.
As for people exploiting it, absolutely there will be attempts. But the same goes for every single FFP rule or any other rule in football, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to introduce things.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 06, 2024, 11:19:32 AM
While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.
That's a reason that FFP is seriously flawed. In most other industries, you have to revalue your assets at 'fair value' periodically, so if you have a building rising in value, that gets reflected in the accounts. It doesn't happen with footballers, so we've got Kamara valued at nowt, when in reality to buy a player of his standing we'd be looking at shelling out c. £70m. And you could say the same about Luiz, McGinn, Martinez etc.
Conversely the 2 who have been out for the season get valued at say 40% less? Mings value pre injury say 35m would be treated as 20m. Similar for Buendia.
There something in that
Only problem is it would need proper regulation - Liverpool would probably have valued Gerrard at 100m in 2010 even though he would have fetched 50m top
Post by: paul_e on March 06, 2024, 11:19:55 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 06, 2024, 11:21:45 AM
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 11:23:55 AM
As I've said before the biggest problem for me is that the £35m figure was set more than a decade ago and has never been revisited. It's clear that we've now reached a point in terms of wages, fees, etc where it needs to be revisited. Average wages and fees have more than doubled since it came into effect and even general inflation (roughly 48% from 2012 to 2024) should be considered. A simple increase from £35m per season to something around £50-55m should be a simple change that would help for clubs like us who are trying to bridge the gap and have the backing to do it.
But if the point is sustainability, then letting clubs make more losses seems illogical, regardless of inflation.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 11:36:56 AM
Nice thread and some calculations there...
Post by: chrisw1 on March 06, 2024, 11:46:05 AM
I think the original idea of stopping the richest (i.e. the seemingly accepted thinking is that Platini did it to stop English clubs running away with everything) seems right. However, it doesn't work as what has happened is that the richest get richer and more successful.But them we have another Man City in Newcastle along with Chelsea firmly back in the game.
Purslow's suggestion seems fair enough to me, in that owners should put money into escrow to cover all the contractual expenses they may have and meaning clubs wouldn't go out of existence- (and owners with money could still spend). But I'd also add a salary cap to ensure it allowed other clubs to find owners who were prepared to invest.
It's rock or hard place, but I fancy our chances of clawing ourselves into the elite through excellent management and shrewd commercial dealing better than going head on with three 'Man Cities'
edit - yes the salary cap would help, but I think the horse has bolted on that one.
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 11:48:16 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 06, 2024, 11:49:38 AM
I think the regulations only apply to owner funded losses don't they? So you'd just be increasing the threshold of what owners can inject back to the levels it was when FFP was first applied.As I've said before the biggest problem for me is that the £35m figure was set more than a decade ago and has never been revisited. It's clear that we've now reached a point in terms of wages, fees, etc where it needs to be revisited. Average wages and fees have more than doubled since it came into effect and even general inflation (roughly 48% from 2012 to 2024) should be considered. A simple increase from £35m per season to something around £50-55m should be a simple change that would help for clubs like us who are trying to bridge the gap and have the backing to do it.
But if the point is sustainability, then letting clubs make more losses seems illogical, regardless of inflation.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 06, 2024, 11:53:32 AM
The accounts are showing on Companies House, if anybody wants to see them.
I don't want to see them, but I would like you to take time out of your busy day to analyse them and summarise what it all means on here, please. This is an unpaid role.
Post by: LeeB on March 06, 2024, 11:56:02 AM
The accounts are showing on Companies House, if anybody wants to see them.
I don't want to see them, but I would like you to take time out of your busy day to analyse them and summarise what it all means on here, please. This is an unpaid role.
I second this motion.
Post by: Beard82 on March 06, 2024, 12:02:02 PM
I agree too. I would happily do it but I don’t understand them.The accounts are showing on Companies House, if anybody wants to see them.
I don't want to see them, but I would like you to take time out of your busy day to analyse them and summarise what it all means on here, please. This is an unpaid role.
I second this motion.
Don’t break your back doing - 20 or 30 animated PowerPoint slides would be enough
Post by: PeterWithe on March 06, 2024, 12:02:37 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 06, 2024, 12:02:59 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 06, 2024, 12:03:41 PM
Yes please, If SE can spare us the time to give us his thoughts on the latest developments in the world of plumbing, then a bit of financial analysis is the least you can do.
It's good to be appreciated. Thank you PW.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 12:11:55 PM
I agree too. I would happily do it but I don’t understand them.The accounts are showing on Companies House, if anybody wants to see them.
I don't want to see them, but I would like you to take time out of your busy day to analyse them and summarise what it all means on here, please. This is an unpaid role.
I second this motion.
Don’t break your back doing - 20 or 30 animated PowerPoint slides would be enough
I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone asking an accountant for a powerpoint presentation before.
Post by: danno on March 06, 2024, 12:12:58 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 06, 2024, 12:24:21 PM
Yes please, If SE can spare us the time to give us his thoughts on the latest developments in the world of plumbing, then a bit of financial analysis is the least you can do.Oh I missed this. My fault for not venturing into off topic I guess, but if there's gems like that in there I may have to reconsider the use of my spare time.
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 12:32:30 PM
You can see that there's £4m of community expenditure, £14.5m youth team and £2.5m on the women's team, so that's £21m that can be deducted for FFP purposes to start with.
Post by: rougegorge on March 06, 2024, 01:19:45 PM
I'll have a proper look later, but to be honest there isn't a lot that hasn't been said already. The two main differences between the current set of accounts and the year before is wages, at about £60m increase. The other big difference is that we obviously didn't get £100m for a player this year.If only that youth investment could result in just one or two players making the Premier League grade with us, we would have less to worry about.
You can see that there's £4m of community expenditure, £14.5m youth team and £2.5m on the women's team, so that's £21m that can be deducted for FFP purposes to start with.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 06, 2024, 01:23:51 PM
2023 -£96.7m
2022 +£20.7m
2021 -£22.8m *I couldn't see the Women's team figure for 2021 in the reports so this is likely higher by at least £1m I'd say.
So that's -£98m across the 3 years, well within the £105m, even without the covid figure.
As we all thought, the issue is this year started off at -£76m - meaning we can only lose £29m this year.
We haven't done that in transfers thanks to the money from selling the younglings. So the risk is to do with how much revenue we've gone up by compared to how much we're paying on player salaries.
I'm pretty confident there isn't a huge issue at all.
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 01:26:39 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 06, 2024, 01:28:47 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?
I can certainly imagine the new crest burning into the wooden crates.
Post by: brontebilly on March 06, 2024, 01:29:29 PM
While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.
That's a reason that FFP is seriously flawed. In most other industries, you have to revalue your assets at 'fair value' periodically, so if you have a building rising in value, that gets reflected in the accounts. It doesn't happen with footballers, so we've got Kamara valued at nowt, when in reality to buy a player of his standing we'd be looking at shelling out c. £70m. And you could say the same about Luiz, McGinn, Martinez etc.
I guess fair value in football would be challenging to agree on but without it the whole system is screwed. It's currently incentivising academy farms not player or club development.
Post by: sid1964 on March 06, 2024, 01:43:06 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 06, 2024, 01:44:26 PM
While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.
That's a reason that FFP is seriously flawed. In most other industries, you have to revalue your assets at 'fair value' periodically, so if you have a building rising in value, that gets reflected in the accounts. It doesn't happen with footballers, so we've got Kamara valued at nowt, when in reality to buy a player of his standing we'd be looking at shelling out c. £70m. And you could say the same about Luiz, McGinn, Martinez etc.
I guess fair value in football would be challenging to agree on but without it the whole system is screwed. It's currently incentivising academy farms not player or club development.
Yes but if you were limited on this farming it would help
Post by: LeeS on March 06, 2024, 01:50:11 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?
Or Wes rents out VP for his kids to play in when its not being used. Cost £1m per day.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 06, 2024, 01:52:21 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 06, 2024, 01:54:07 PM
The jump in wages will possibly include paying off Gerrard and villareal so could be skewed by one off payments rather than an ongoing trend.
I think we offered Emery and his team a lot to sweeten the deal, so there will definitely be an increase.
Also, we don't know what the terms of Purslow's exit are yet and how much that has cost.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 06, 2024, 02:02:31 PM
I’ve no idea, just trying to find reasons for optimism.
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 02:03:03 PM
I'll have a proper look later, but to be honest there isn't a lot that hasn't been said already. The two main differences between the current set of accounts and the year before is wages, at about £60m increase. The other big difference is that we obviously didn't get £100m for a player this year.If only that youth investment could result in just one or two players making the Premier League grade with us, we would have less to worry about.
You can see that there's £4m of community expenditure, £14.5m youth team and £2.5m on the women's team, so that's £21m that can be deducted for FFP purposes to start with.
I know right, we've hardly had any positives from our Academy recently, only Ramsey J, Iroegbunam, Kellyman, Kesler-Hayden, and O'Reilly have played any games and others that played and were sold raised hardly any cash at all over the past couple of years. The only ones that spring to mind are Archer, Ramsey A., Philogene, Chukwuemeka, Davis and some unknown, what's his name, Greasyish?
Post by: Beard82 on March 06, 2024, 02:05:04 PM
Post by: olaftab on March 06, 2024, 02:17:46 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 02:17:50 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?
Isn't that just another way of saying 'fuck the rules' though?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 06, 2024, 02:19:06 PM
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 02:19:06 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?
Isn't that just another way of saying 'fuck the rules' though?
I think you might be taking the post a little bit more seriously than I intended...
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?
Isn't that just another way of saying 'fuck the rules' though?
I think you might be taking the post a little bit more seriously than I intended...
Haha, well perhaps, but the reality of all of this stuff is that it's very hard to tell what's serious, what's made up and what's just an absolute joke! :-)
Post by: olaftab on March 06, 2024, 02:34:44 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?Brilliant. Fancy dropping a line to Wes and Nas?
Post by: tomd2103 on March 06, 2024, 02:35:09 PM
This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
Sorry to go back a couple of pages, but this really highlights the financial gap between the so called 'big six' and the rest of the league. The fact that Manchester City can have such a massive wage bill and for it to be such a relatively small percentage of their turnover (compared to others) is sobering really.
Chelsea's is also a standout given Stamford Bridge is a similar size, if not smaller than Villa Park.
Post by: VillaTim on March 06, 2024, 02:38:24 PM
looks more like a BIG4 to me then there's a gap.This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
Sorry to go back a couple of pages, but this really highlights the financial gap between the so called 'big six'. The fact that Manchester City can have such a massive wage bill and for it to be such a relatively small percentage of their turnover (compared to others) is sobering really.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 06, 2024, 02:46:04 PM
Post by: Proposition Joe on March 06, 2024, 02:46:27 PM
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 02:48:59 PM
Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?Brilliant. Fancy dropping a line to Wes and Nas?
I will do, once I've finalised my idea of how to make it seem like a 3rd division Spanish club can afford to buy Coutinho and Duran for £50m. Also, we auction a special Golden Seat next to Unai in the dugout, starting bid £20m a year. I could see the winner being somebody called Des Ewens.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 06, 2024, 02:49:10 PM
Just thought that extending the financial year to end of June means they may be able to include more revenue that they get from the Foo Fighters singalong that month.
Or give us an extra month to accrue more losses. :(
Post by: Risso on March 06, 2024, 02:50:01 PM
The thing about the 3 year rolling average... How can Forest be in trouble if they haven't been in the PL for three years yet?
There are rules for promoted teams that are a mix of the EPL and PL rules.
Post by: claret+blue ed on March 06, 2024, 02:54:01 PM
Roughly, I can make out our P&S figures beingThis what i mentioned earlier, the 2022 figure everyone was mentioning was a £300k profit, but that was surely without any FFP allowable costs taken off, so it would actually show as more profit
2023 -£96.7m
2022 +£20.7m
2021 -£22.8m *I couldn't see the Women's team figure for 2021 in the reports so this is likely higher by at least £1m I'd say.
So that's -£98m across the 3 years, well within the £105m, even without the covid figure.
As we all thought, the issue is this year started off at -£76m - meaning we can only lose £29m this year.
We haven't done that in transfers thanks to the money from selling the younglings. So the risk is to do with how much revenue we've gone up by compared to how much we're paying on player salaries.
I'm pretty confident there isn't a huge issue at all.
Post by: OCD on March 06, 2024, 03:07:25 PM
Roughly, I can make out our P&S figures being
2023 -£96.7m
2022 +£20.7m
2021 -£22.8m *I couldn't see the Women's team figure for 2021 in the reports so this is likely higher by at least £1m I'd say.
So that's -£98m across the 3 years, well within the £105m, even without the covid figure.
As we all thought, the issue is this year started off at -£76m - meaning we can only lose £29m this year.
We haven't done that in transfers thanks to the money from selling the younglings. So the risk is to do with how much revenue we've gone up by compared to how much we're paying on player salaries.
I'm pretty confident there isn't a huge issue at all.
This is my thinking too.
The women's team has been set-up as a different company.
Post by: Villan82 on March 06, 2024, 03:13:31 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2024, 03:15:42 PM
I'd love to know how our merch and replica kits etc are selling this year since the new President of Business basically came out last summer and said our new crest is horrible?
The kids kits seems to be selling well, given the lack of stock in the club shop on matchdays. There's a really big sale of all the other stuff though.
I'm not sure it's just the crest thing either, Castore are getting binned too, so that will hold people back.
Post by: Monty on March 06, 2024, 03:26:12 PM
Post by: darren woolley on March 06, 2024, 04:01:29 PM
Man City's is just such a fucking obvious fiddle.
I agree with you.
Post by: SamTheMouse on March 06, 2024, 04:03:51 PM
Man City's is just such a fucking obvious fiddle.
It's the Trump approach. If you break the rules egregiously enough and lie brazenly enough, it just stuns everyone into submission.
It's basically a superpower.
Post by: algy on March 06, 2024, 05:59:51 PM
I'm not sure about all this inflation and FFP thing.Agree 100% with this.
The big issue with FFP is buying players and paying them. Yes, stadium costs and paying catering staff and kit washers and retail people and everything goes up with inflation, but nobody is paying players more wages simply because the cost of the weekly shop has gone up £50. And Eric and Tina's wage for slowly selling pies and pints every other week are not tipping clubs into the abyss.
Raising the limit will just mean higher transfer fees and higher wages to soak it all up again and we're back where we started.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 06, 2024, 07:36:21 PM
https://x.com/mattburton72/status/1765338645903347726?s=20
Nice thread and some calculations there...
Figures may not be exact, but that is about right isn't it? Looks like it could be very tight this year, but it's the following year (24/25 season) that could see trouble.
That £120m loss (even though it will be reduced for FFP purposes) is going to prove problematic isn't it, as it will be counted for another couple of years?
Post by: paul_e on March 06, 2024, 07:40:30 PM
I'm not sure about all this inflation and FFP thing.Agree 100% with this.
The big issue with FFP is buying players and paying them. Yes, stadium costs and paying catering staff and kit washers and retail people and everything goes up with inflation, but nobody is paying players more wages simply because the cost of the weekly shop has gone up £50. And Eric and Tina's wage for slowly selling pies and pints every other week are not tipping clubs into the abyss.
Raising the limit will just mean higher transfer fees and higher wages to soak it all up again and we're back where we started.
Higher wages and fees has already happened though, they've more than doubled since the numbers were set. Increasing the threshold is obviously just kicking the problem down the road but unless FiFA/UEFA/etc all agree to create an enforce caps there's not much you can do to force wages/fees down. Leaving things as they are just means the gap at the top gets wider and you end up with a super league by default.
Post by: Stu on March 06, 2024, 07:56:56 PM
Man City's is just such a fucking obvious fiddle.
It's the Trump approach. If you break the rules egregiously enough and lie brazenly enough, it just stuns everyone into submission.
It's basically a superpower.
I think it's more that they don't give a fuck. Didn't one of their board members once say that they'll happily spend £30m to tie up the EPL/UEFA in litigation for as long as it takes to make these charges go away in some sort of brinkmanship battle? Who blinks first etc?
What we, and possibly Newcastle, are experiencing now is the ultimate endgame of FFP: to compete with teams who were able to spend their way to success prior to the FFP rules coming into place and cement their huge incomes through said success, we have to:
- sell the players, likely to those very same successful teams, who made our challenge possible
- sell excellent academy players whom the club have nurtured and trained for years - in some cases to those same successful teams
- try and sustain a challenge to the top four of the league with cheaper, inexperienced players whom the manager has to improve
Given those are the parameters to competitiveness, then the only option is to try and increase income from whatever source: new stadium, higher ticket prices, etc. But those things can only happen when a team is competing.
So essentially FFP has provided only one incentive: not to compete for trophies, just to balance the books. A bean counting exercise with a few mega clubs who do whatever the fuck they want and win everything every year until the end of time.
Post by: astonvilla82 on March 06, 2024, 08:13:09 PM
Post by: Stu on March 06, 2024, 08:23:12 PM
Would it be possible that in future that clubs like Newcastle and Aston Villa take the premier league to court over restrictions of trade?, because it looks like becoming a close shop, relying on someone who knows about the matter to answer
I get where you're coming from. I suppose the restriction of trade has it's proximate cause in the restriction of competitiveness. Hasn't this argument been subject to a test case in court before though?
Post by: Gareth on March 06, 2024, 08:49:55 PM
Would it be possible that in future that clubs like Newcastle and Aston Villa take the premier league to court over restrictions of trade?, because it looks like becoming a close shop, relying on someone who knows about the matter to answer
Don’t think so because the members of the league get to vote on issues so that’s the mechanism to change things - the clubs that want change have to bring it to the meetings and get the votes to make it happen…reality is nothing changes until the Man Utd’s / Liverpools who have the clout need things to happen
Post by: lovejoy on March 07, 2024, 08:56:29 AM
Post by: lovejoy on March 07, 2024, 09:00:09 AM
Post by: The Edge on March 07, 2024, 09:05:21 AM
Controversial view but, thank you Jack Grealish for giving us the headroom to reinvest in the squad and not being a dick by acting up for a move or winding down the contract so we reduce the transfer fee.I couldn't agree more. I'm often perplexed by the vitriol he gets from some sections of our fanbase. Put simply we would not be in the position we are now were it not for the sale of Jack Grealish for 100m.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 07, 2024, 09:10:00 AM
Same. People moan that he engineered a move by insisting on a buy out clause in the contract, while forgetting that he actually signed that contract, massively increasing his value to us.Controversial view but, thank you Jack Grealish for giving us the headroom to reinvest in the squad and not being a dick by acting up for a move or winding down the contract so we reduce the transfer fee.I couldn't agree more. I'm often perplexed by the vitriol he gets from some sections of our fanbase. Put simply we would not be in the position we are now were it not for the sale of Jack Grealish for 100m.
Post by: Villan82 on March 07, 2024, 09:17:47 AM
We bought in Bailey, Buendia, Ings to replace Grealish in 2021. Bailey came good in the end and Buendia did too well before the injury. Since then with the wriggle room we had further invested in Kamara, Torres, Digne, Moreno, Cash, Diaby.
The summer Grealish went you just felt we were on the cusp of something and he walked out on it.
Post by: lovejoy on March 07, 2024, 09:40:27 AM
Whilst turnover is up £39m to £217m, amortisation is up £10m to £92m (and effectively locked in), and wages are up £57m to £194m but not clear how much is underlying vs one offs. We employ 254 player, management and coaching staff.
Our 2023/4 player trading is spend £64m receive £40m so-£28m vs -£64m in the current accounts so £36m better off.
Our cumulative losses are £700m but we have no real external debt (there is a £60m bridging loan from a related company post year end.
The Directors consider 16th a reasonable worse case scenario.
We have a further £61m add ons to pay which may be triggered depending on future events (I guess performances and success). This means if we qualify for CL for example not all the income will be available as "free spend".
In short these results arent as stark as I was fearing (and given they dont calculate the FFP numbers it is difficult to estimate) but I feel we need to do some belt tightening this year and must be braced for the Jack money falling away the year after.
We cant compete at the top table until we have more matchday income.
Post by: Behind Bluenose Lines on March 07, 2024, 09:48:42 AM
Post by: Risso on March 07, 2024, 09:49:15 AM
Post by: Mister E on March 07, 2024, 09:49:42 AM
That's one view. Another is that Martinez, Konsa, Luiz, McGinn and Watkins were all here the year before we sold Grealish and they are the spine of the team that is currently top four. He could have grown with them and taken us to the highs we are at now.Buendia came in before JG was sold; he came in to add further quality to the team not to replace JG.
We bought in Bailey, Buendia, Ings to replace Grealish in 2021. Bailey came good in the end and Buendia did too well before the injury. Since then with the wriggle room we had further invested in Kamara, Torres, Digne, Moreno, Cash, Diaby.
The summer Grealish went you just felt we were on the cusp of something and he walked out on it.
But I take the point you're making.
I, like others, hold no vitriol towards JG: I think he made a big mistake (because he could have been part of our renaissance), but selling him may have saved us from financial restrictions.
Post by: Gareth on March 07, 2024, 09:53:54 AM
It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.
Absolutely-at the moment they are an unknown dark art that are just a starting point for negotiation and appeal
Post by: Somniloquism on March 07, 2024, 10:00:49 AM
Buendia came in before JG was sold; he came in to add further quality to the team not to replace JG.
But I take the point you're making.
I, like others, hold no vitriol towards JG: I think he made a big mistake (because he could have been part of our renaissance), but selling him may have saved us from financial restrictions.
Although "deals" are usually thrashed out in the weeks beforehand between clubs so although Bailey, Buendia and Ings were all bought before Grealish was sold, the money spent might be knowing he was leaving and ensuring transfer fees then didn't shoot up due to having the Citeh cash.
But when they came in, we did think the purchases were to free Grealish up as when he was stopped, the team used to be stopped.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 07, 2024, 10:00:51 AM
The club nurtured him, invested in a youth program that fostered him and Dean Smith supported him through thick and thin, we got a return on that investment so what?. He was not thinking of The Villa when he fucked off up the M6 to be awarded meaningless trinkets. F*** him and all who sail in him.
Post by: Rigadon on March 07, 2024, 10:01:40 AM
That's one view. Another is that Martinez, Konsa, Luiz, McGinn and Watkins were all here the year before we sold Grealish and they are the spine of the team that is currently top four. He could have grown with them and taken us to the highs we are at now.
We bought in Bailey, Buendia, Ings to replace Grealish in 2021. Bailey came good in the end and Buendia did too well before the injury. Since then with the wriggle room we had further invested in Kamara, Torres, Digne, Moreno, Cash, Diaby.
The summer Grealish went you just felt we were on the cusp of something and he walked out on it.
Yes. It's not just about money with most fans is it... it's really not a rational thing for grown ups to care so much about whether a football team does well.
We got good money for selling him, but I think everyone knows that's not where the vitriol comes from.
Anyway, it's unhealthy to hold grudges isn't it, and I think most have moved on from how they might've felt when he left the club.
Post by: LeeB on March 07, 2024, 10:04:32 AM
That's one view. Another is that Martinez, Konsa, Luiz, McGinn and Watkins were all here the year before we sold Grealish and they are the spine of the team that is currently top four. He could have grown with them and taken us to the highs we are at now.
We bought in Bailey, Buendia, Ings to replace Grealish in 2021. Bailey came good in the end and Buendia did too well before the injury. Since then with the wriggle room we had further invested in Kamara, Torres, Digne, Moreno, Cash, Diaby.
The summer Grealish went you just felt we were on the cusp of something and he walked out on it.
Yes. It's not just about money with most fans is it... it's really not a rational thing for grown ups to care so much about whether a football team does well.
We got good money for selling him, but I think everyone knows that's not where the vitriol comes from.
Anyway, it's unhealthy to hold grudges isn't it, and I think most have moved on from how they might've felt when he left the club.
Wise words but I haven't, the bellend.
Post by: Risso on March 07, 2024, 10:07:25 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 07, 2024, 10:24:51 AM
Post by: Rigadon on March 07, 2024, 10:28:02 AM
Post by: The Edge on March 07, 2024, 10:30:51 AM
I wont be getting the Rosary Beads out and praying at the Alter of Saint Greasy any time soon.No one is calling him a Saint and definitely not me but there's no denying the 100 million quid we trousered off Ci£y has played a massive role in our current position. Without the Grealish money to help balance the books I'm pretty sure we would have fallen foul of ffp. We're still not sure we're compliant even now.
The club nurtured him, invested in a youth program that fostered him and Dean Smith supported him through thick and thin, we got a return on that investment so what?. He was not thinking of The Villa when he fucked off up the M6 to be awarded meaningless trinkets. F*** him and all who sail in him.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 07, 2024, 10:33:25 AM
It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.
I was thinking about this.
So, currently, the three years we have are 37, 0 and 119. We know in this current financial year, we have shifted 40+ million of home grown and Ings for 15, so although we spent last summer, we've at least improved the base the figures are built on for the next set of figures.
To be compliant we know we've had deductibles of at least 51m over the 3 years (37 + 119 - 51 = 105)
Do you know what? I've totally lost interest in this post. I don't even know what I am trying to say.
I wish we (ie everyone who likes football) didn't have to focus on finances so much, the system is clearly megafucked - fucked because of the big six and their ladder, fucked because of the other 14 effectively being forced to sell them their best players thus perpetuating the gap, and fucked because it has turned football into accountancy.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 07, 2024, 10:38:43 AM
Short memories, what did his Dicking around whilst Citeh were trying to buy Kane leaving us totally in the lurch cost us?I wont be getting the Rosary Beads out and praying at the Alter of Saint Greasy any time soon.No one is calling him a Saint and definitely not me but there's no denying the 100 million quid we trousered off Ci£y has played a massive role in our current position. Without the Grealish money to help balance the books I'm pretty sure we would have fallen foul of ffp. We're still not sure we're compliant even now.
The club nurtured him, invested in a youth program that fostered him and Dean Smith supported him through thick and thin, we got a return on that investment so what?. He was not thinking of The Villa when he fucked off up the M6 to be awarded meaningless trinkets. F*** him and all who sail in him.
It cost us momentum, it cost Smith his job and it cost us Gerrard.
Post by: LeeS on March 07, 2024, 10:41:18 AM
I wish we (ie everyone who likes football) didn't have to focus on finances so much, the system is clearly megafucked - fucked because of the big six and their ladder, fucked because of the other 14 effectively being forced to sell them their best players thus perpetuating the gap, and fucked because it has turned football into accountancy.
Couldnt agree more. Throw in the absolute horror show that is VAR and football is trying to eat itself.
Post by: Risso on March 07, 2024, 10:44:36 AM
The only thing that would ensure some sort of "fair play" would be a wage cap, but the Premier League is never going to bring that in as it would reduce its competitiveness compared to other major European Leagues.
Post by: paul_e on March 07, 2024, 10:52:35 AM
There really isn't a simple solution that I can see. We want to be able to spend more freely, but to do so would mean the likes of the clubs ahead of us being able to do the same, and that wouldn't be good for us at all.
The only thing that would ensure some sort of "fair play" would be a wage cap, but the Premier League is never going to bring that in as it would reduce its competitiveness compared to other major European Leagues.
Which is why a wage cap needs to come in at FIFA level, and can't be as simple as "x% of turnover".
Post by: London Villan on March 07, 2024, 10:52:39 AM
Short memories, what did his Dicking around whilst Citeh were trying to buy Kane leaving us totally in the lurch cost us?I wont be getting the Rosary Beads out and praying at the Alter of Saint Greasy any time soon.No one is calling him a Saint and definitely not me but there's no denying the 100 million quid we trousered off Ci£y has played a massive role in our current position. Without the Grealish money to help balance the books I'm pretty sure we would have fallen foul of ffp. We're still not sure we're compliant even now.
The club nurtured him, invested in a youth program that fostered him and Dean Smith supported him through thick and thin, we got a return on that investment so what?. He was not thinking of The Villa when he fucked off up the M6 to be awarded meaningless trinkets. F*** him and all who sail in him.
It cost us momentum, it cost Smith his job and it cost us Gerrard.
We'll always have the BBQ by the river to remember.
Post by: DB on March 07, 2024, 10:53:14 AM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 07, 2024, 11:09:01 AM
There really isn't a simple solution that I can see. We want to be able to spend more freely, but to do so would mean the likes of the clubs ahead of us being able to do the same, and that wouldn't be good for us at all.
The only thing that would ensure some sort of "fair play" would be a wage cap, but the Premier League is never going to bring that in as it would reduce its competitiveness compared to other major European Leagues.
Which is why a wage cap needs to come in at FIFA level, and can't be as simple as "x% of turnover".
I also believe limiting the number of players you can own would help
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 07, 2024, 11:52:45 AM
Buendia came in before JG was sold; he came in to add further quality to the team not to replace JG.
But I take the point you're making.
I, like others, hold no vitriol towards JG: I think he made a big mistake (because he could have been part of our renaissance), but selling him may have saved us from financial restrictions.
Although "deals" are usually thrashed out in the weeks beforehand between clubs so although Bailey, Buendia and Ings were all bought before Grealish was sold, the money spent might be knowing he was leaving and ensuring transfer fees then didn't shoot up due to having the Citeh cash.
But when they came in, we did think the purchases were to free Grealish up as when he was stopped, the team used to be stopped.
Im pretty sure there were comments from Purslow about these three deals being the Grealish replacement & there were words to the effect of "Ings would replace Grealish goals, Buendia to replace his creativity/assists & Bailey to replace Grealish dribbling ability". Cant remember the exact quote but it was words to that effect.
So they were 100% brought in as Grealish replacement, despite arriving before he left.
I think it was done that way so that we wouldn't get stiffed on the fees cos clubs knew we had the £100M.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 07, 2024, 11:55:43 AM
I wont be getting the Rosary Beads out and praying at the Alter of Saint Greasy any time soon.
The club nurtured him, invested in a youth program that fostered him and Dean Smith supported him through thick and thin, we got a return on that investment so what?. He was not thinking of The Villa when he fucked off up the M6 to be awarded meaningless trinkets. F*** him and all who sail in him.
And its not like he wasn't trying to manufacture moves away to ManU & Spurs the two years previous too.
Post by: Risso on March 07, 2024, 11:56:17 AM
Post by: Risso on March 07, 2024, 11:59:33 AM
No one is calling him a Saint and definitely not me but there's no denying the 100 million quid we trousered off Ci£y has played a massive role in our current position. Without the Grealish money to help balance the books I'm pretty sure we would have fallen foul of ffp. We're still not sure we're compliant even now.
We are sure we're compliant because we haven't been charged for being non-compliant.
And if we hadn't sold him, our business would have continued without the money, but we'd have been OK. We'd have bought other players, and maybe sold others too. It's impossible to say.
Post by: brontebilly on March 07, 2024, 12:09:09 PM
I wont be getting the Rosary Beads out and praying at the Alter of Saint Greasy any time soon.
The club nurtured him, invested in a youth program that fostered him and Dean Smith supported him through thick and thin, we got a return on that investment so what?. He was not thinking of The Villa when he fucked off up the M6 to be awarded meaningless trinkets. F*** him and all who sail in him.
Maybe it worked out well for both parties? He was a key player for them winning their treble last season. He seems to have regressed again this season with injuries and whatever else but for them I'd say the trinkets last season justify the outlay.
For us, 100m still seems a huge fee given how inconsistent he has been over the three seasons. Ings was a dreadful signing but Bailey now looks the player we thought we were getting. Buendia, maybe not the level of the fee we paid, but has definitely been a big loss this season.
Under Emery, we are a far better balanced team now not being reliant on one player. Luiz, McGinn, Watkins et al have all eventually thrived. When Grealish was out injured those players simply couldn't cope. I'll never forget when we beat Spurs away, after Grealish came back from his injury, McGinn played his best game of that season. But that wasn't sustainable. Also our finances simply werent sustainable without the 100m we banked from selling him. You would want to be particularly bitter to ignore his performances in getting us and keeping us in the PL too.
It's highly unlikely now with our finances but if that weren't an issue, he would be the ideal transfer target this summer. Imagine him playing in that Tielemans role with likes of Watkins, Ramsey, Bailey, Luiz around him.
Post by: LeeB on March 07, 2024, 12:11:49 PM
Post by: danno on March 07, 2024, 12:12:55 PM
Then there’s the cost involved in sacking Smith, appointing Gerrard and then signing more expensive players for Gerrard. Assuming that Smith may have gotten better results with Grealish still here.
It’s impossible to say with any certainty. So I can’t thank him for leaving because it can’t be proven we wouldn’t have been better off keeping him.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 07, 2024, 12:18:59 PM
Selling him could easily have cost us more than the hundred million he brought in. Signing Ings and Buendia with their fees and wages. Then there’s loss of income from finishing lower in the table, less TV money because we’re less attractive to broadcasters without our star man, less commercial opportunities, less merchandise sold. Any number of things along those lines.
Then there’s the cost involved in sacking Smith, appointing Gerrard and then signing more expensive players for Gerrard. Assuming that Smith may have gotten better results with Grealish still here.
It’s impossible to say with any certainty. So I can’t thank him for leaving because it can’t be proven we wouldn’t have been better off keeping him.
That's like saying, "if my wife hadn't left me I'd still have the house and access to the kids." Well yeah, but she did leave you pal. She didn't love you anymore, and you crying into your pint about it three years later makes me think she had a point.
Post by: danno on March 07, 2024, 12:23:51 PM
Selling him could easily have cost us more than the hundred million he brought in. Signing Ings and Buendia with their fees and wages. Then there’s loss of income from finishing lower in the table, less TV money because we’re less attractive to broadcasters without our star man, less commercial opportunities, less merchandise sold. Any number of things along those lines.
Then there’s the cost involved in sacking Smith, appointing Gerrard and then signing more expensive players for Gerrard. Assuming that Smith may have gotten better results with Grealish still here.
It’s impossible to say with any certainty. So I can’t thank him for leaving because it can’t be proven we wouldn’t have been better off keeping him.
That's like saying, "if my wife hadn't left me I'd still have the house and access to the kids." Well yeah, but she did leave you pal. She didn't love you anymore, and you crying into your pint about it three years later makes me think she had a point.
I’m so glad she left me if she hadn’t I’d never have met that comedian online who turned me onto the writings of Adriian Chiles.
The broader point is it’s impossible to prove either way. So why does somebody who left for their own ambitions need to be thanked for something that might not even have happened had they stayed?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 07, 2024, 12:27:06 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 07, 2024, 12:48:59 PM
Jack's sale gave us some breathing room. It wasn't just the 3 players mentioned - they were amortised over 5 years. The £100m gave us room to manoeuvre over 3 seasons.
It seems Emery's choice now will to be broadly work with what he's got or sell another big asset to build further.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 07, 2024, 01:17:26 PM
I'm happy to be seen as 'particularly bitter'.Mines a pint.
Post by: The Edge on March 07, 2024, 01:21:07 PM
I'm not trying to big Grealish up I've no reason to but the 100m we got for him which was pure profit certainly gave us wriggle room in the transfer market. Quite a lot of wriggle room.No one is calling him a Saint and definitely not me but there's no denying the 100 million quid we trousered off Ci£y has played a massive role in our current position. Without the Grealish money to help balance the books I'm pretty sure we would have fallen foul of ffp. We're still not sure we're compliant even now.
We are sure we're compliant because we haven't been charged for being non-compliant.
And if we hadn't sold him, our business would have continued without the money, but we'd have been OK. We'd have bought other players, and maybe sold others too. It's impossible to say.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 07, 2024, 01:48:31 PM
I'm not trying to big Grealish up I've no reason to but the 100m we got for him which was pure profit certainly gave us wriggle room in the transfer market. Quite a lot of wriggle room.No one is calling him a Saint and definitely not me but there's no denying the 100 million quid we trousered off Ci£y has played a massive role in our current position. Without the Grealish money to help balance the books I'm pretty sure we would have fallen foul of ffp. We're still not sure we're compliant even now.
We are sure we're compliant because we haven't been charged for being non-compliant.
And if we hadn't sold him, our business would have continued without the money, but we'd have been OK. We'd have bought other players, and maybe sold others too. It's impossible to say.
It's swings and roundabouts, though, as you said, that 100m was immensely useful, but then again, so was the best player we've had in many years.
Post by: brontebilly on March 07, 2024, 02:33:25 PM
Selling him could easily have cost us more than the hundred million he brought in. Signing Ings and Buendia with their fees and wages. Then there’s loss of income from finishing lower in the table, less TV money because we’re less attractive to broadcasters without our star man, less commercial opportunities, less merchandise sold. Any number of things along those lines.
Then there’s the cost involved in sacking Smith, appointing Gerrard and then signing more expensive players for Gerrard. Assuming that Smith may have gotten better results with Grealish still here.
It’s impossible to say with any certainty. So I can’t thank him for leaving because it can’t be proven we wouldn’t have been better off keeping him.
That's like saying, "if my wife hadn't left me I'd still have the house and access to the kids." Well yeah, but she did leave you pal. She didn't love you anymore, and you crying into your pint about it three years later makes me think she had a point.
😂
Post by: tomd2103 on March 07, 2024, 02:50:28 PM
It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.
I was thinking about this.
So, currently, the three years we have are 37, 0 and 119. We know in this current financial year, we have shifted 40+ million of home grown and Ings for 15, so although we spent last summer, we've at least improved the base the figures are built on for the next set of figures.
To be compliant we know we've had deductibles of at least 51m over the 3 years (37 + 119 - 51 = 105)
Do you know what? I've totally lost interest in this post. I don't even know what I am trying to say.
From the little I understand of it, we were OK at December 2023, otherwise we would have been charged along with Everton and Forest. So therefore isn't 'year one' now the year we made the £300k profit and the next calculation will take into account the year we lost £120m plus this year, with the decision made in December 2024?
Guess it depends on the deductibles applied as well. Think Everton got their 10 point deduction as the powers that be did not agree with their calculations from a couple of years back (think it was the 21/22 season).
I have no idea how much those deductibles are and whether they will be accepted, but let's say they are a conservative estimate of £20m each season. Does that mean for this period we would be + £20.3m year one, - £79.7m year 2 (20.3 - 100), leaving whatever the figure is for this season to be added?
The deductibles might be significantly more than £20m, which would give us more wriggle room. If not and £20m is about right, then it is going to be tight. Guess it could be tight while that £120m loss (minus deductibles) remains on there as well?
Post by: Baldy on March 07, 2024, 03:09:07 PM
Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!
Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.
The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.
Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.
Post by: brontebilly on March 07, 2024, 03:30:32 PM
Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.
Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!
Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.
The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.
Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.
Until they can land charges on Man City that actually stick they are at nothing. There was merit in FFP but it's implementation is having unintended consequences that are damaging to player and club development. Any model that incentivises academy 'farms' is not good for the game.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 07, 2024, 03:46:05 PM
Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.
Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!
Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.
The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.
Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.
Until they can land charges on Man City that actually stick they are at nothing. There was merit in FFP but it's implementation is having unintended consequences that are damaging to player and club development. Any model that incentivises academy 'farms' is not good for the game.
Yep, for decades I have been wondering what would be required for us to 'take that next step' and that list a few pages back showing the wage bills of those six clubs and the percentage they are of their turnover puts it in black and white.
With FFP, even having billionaire owners is not enough.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 07, 2024, 04:09:47 PM
Players agents must be right p*ssed off with FFP being used as a bargaining tool in all contract talks.
Any increase in wage for an existing player could result in another player getting the boot. Win bonuses are the way forward!!
Bezos, Musk, States etc will be very hesitant about investing in a club in the future. Newcastle will have scared them off.
The Premier League was like a runaway train going downhill. It had to be controlled. FFP and in particular the Everton point deduction might just have brought some sanity back into the game.
Yes, it needs fine tuning but in the long term it has merit.
Until they can land charges on Man City that actually stick they are at nothing. There was merit in FFP but it's implementation is having unintended consequences that are damaging to player and club development. Any model that incentivises academy 'farms' is not good for the game.
Absolutely this.
FFP or whatever the fuck they are calling it now will never work while the likes of ManC & Chelsea can still utilise the profits from sponsorships gained while they were cheating the fuck out of the game.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 07, 2024, 04:36:17 PM
Their parent company lost £653m in its first 16 months.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 07, 2024, 05:02:32 PM
Chelseas announce losses of £90m. https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cgevny0vg4qo
Their parent company lost £653m in its first 16 months.
£210M over two years...
Christ, I hope they get fucked over seven ways from Sunday.
Im sure they will sleaze their way out of it somehow...
Post by: Mister E on March 07, 2024, 05:29:16 PM
No. I think you're conflating the Buendia acquisition with those of Bailey and Ings. Buendia came in very early, as a complement to JG; the other two (and particularly Ings) came in to compensate for JG's departure. Regardless of how Purslow tried to spin it.Buendia came in before JG was sold; he came in to add further quality to the team not to replace JG.
But I take the point you're making.
I, like others, hold no vitriol towards JG: I think he made a big mistake (because he could have been part of our renaissance), but selling him may have saved us from financial restrictions.
Although "deals" are usually thrashed out in the weeks beforehand between clubs so although Bailey, Buendia and Ings were all bought before Grealish was sold, the money spent might be knowing he was leaving and ensuring transfer fees then didn't shoot up due to having the Citeh cash.
But when they came in, we did think the purchases were to free Grealish up as when he was stopped, the team used to be stopped.
Post by: itbrvilla on March 07, 2024, 06:44:54 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 08, 2024, 01:50:15 AM
According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.
EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 08, 2024, 06:02:14 AM
It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.
Agree. The media do not help as they’re quoting ‘accounting’ losses and then saying that clubs can lose £105m over three seasons. They're linked but they’re not the same.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 08, 2024, 07:38:08 AM
Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:
According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.
EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.
How are outgoing transfer fees accounted for? The money leaves us over the length of the contract signed doesn’t it? So is that accounted for in one hit or as a ‘future liability’ in the accounts?
Post by: Chap on March 08, 2024, 07:50:40 AM
Why let fact get in the way of a scare story?It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.
Agree. The media do not help as they’re quoting ‘accounting’ losses and then saying that clubs can lose £105m over three seasons. They're linked but they’re not the same.
Post by: Risso on March 08, 2024, 08:11:20 AM
Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:
According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.
EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.
There's £62m in contingent liabilities, so you're right mate. Some of that will be for Torres and Diaby, no doubt. More to do do with Diaby I'd have thought, but there's absolutely no way of knowing or even having a guess really.
Post by: algy on March 08, 2024, 08:26:25 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 08, 2024, 09:02:37 AM
Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:
According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.
EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.
How are outgoing transfer fees accounted for? The money leaves us over the length of the contract signed doesn’t it? So is that accounted for in one hit or as a ‘future liability’ in the accounts?
As far as I understand, it’s the fee that is amortised over the length of the contract. The actual payments are a matter of negotiation I assume, hence Risso’s mention of contingent liabilities.
Post by: Risso on March 08, 2024, 09:05:16 AM
Posted this in the Diaby thread, more appropriate in here:
According to the accounts we only spent sixty-odd million in the last TWO transfer windows. I think there must be a few clauses in the reported fees for Torres and Diaby.
EDIT: Since the reporting period, £67.9m spent, £40.3m in sales. Better than I would have expected.
How are outgoing transfer fees accounted for? The money leaves us over the length of the contract signed doesn’t it? So is that accounted for in one hit or as a ‘future liability’ in the accounts?
As far as I understand, it’s the fee that is amortised over the length of the contract. The actual payments are a matter of negotiation I assume, hence Risso’s mention of contingent liabilities.
Correct. The contingent liability will be the stuff like "another £5m if Villa qualify for the Champions League", or X amount of games played etc.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 08, 2024, 09:09:39 AM
It would be good if all FFP figures/adjustments were a matter of public record.
Agree. The media do not help as they’re quoting ‘accounting’ losses and then saying that clubs can lose £105m over three seasons. They're linked but they’re not the same.
Surefire way of getting clicks from the local anti-Villa obsessives though.
Post by: Drummond on March 08, 2024, 01:08:00 PM
Post by: sewiek on March 08, 2024, 04:20:17 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 08, 2024, 04:37:55 PM
Post by: LeeB on March 08, 2024, 04:39:51 PM
I realise I might be a bit of an outlier here, but maybe a lot of the owners don't want to lose even more money?
You can just imagine Doug with a system in place that meant he didn't have to spend but couldn't be blamed for it, would've been all of his Christmases at once.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 08, 2024, 04:42:06 PM
Crackpot.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 08, 2024, 05:06:40 PM
On Joey Barton's podcast
You lost me at this point.
Post by: Baldy on March 08, 2024, 05:51:22 PM
If they get promoted, could be deducted points next season.
Post by: Stu on March 08, 2024, 06:08:08 PM
Post by: VinnieChase84 on March 08, 2024, 06:40:26 PM
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose
One proposed format is a % of wage turnover with clubs lower down in the league having a greater percentage and then on a sliding scale it’s reduced as you move “up” the league
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 08, 2024, 07:03:54 PM
There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose
Yeah, that's pretty clear really.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 08, 2024, 08:57:35 PM
On Joey Barton's podcast
You lost me at this point.
I’m surprised Maguire is so desperate for clicks & views.
Post by: amfy on March 08, 2024, 11:42:14 PM
There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose
Yeah, that's pretty clear really.
Well they wouldn’t want to actually bring those 115 charges would they?
Post by: DB on March 09, 2024, 12:06:22 AM
There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose
Yeah, that's pretty clear really.
Well they wouldn’t want to actually bring those 115 charges would they?
I think some of those go beyond FFP.
Post by: eamonn on March 09, 2024, 12:20:06 AM
Does Cameron Archer come back to us automatically when t'Blades go down? If so, presumably at a similar price to what we sold him for but he'll probably be less in demand and we're unlikely to get a similar amount again from another club. And Aaron Ramsey is out for the rest of the season with a summer of rehab ahead of him - are we in danger of having to buy both these hitherto upwardly mobile lads back and then in a position where we struggle to get a similar fee for them but have outgrown both even to be retained as squad players? All the more frustrating that it's Philogene who we left for a song but is the one we'd prefer to come back. I wonder how much that will hamper us.
Also, will there be a selling frenzy from lots of clubs as soon as the season is over to get all the summer exits on the books before the end of those with financial year-ends, like us, of 30/06?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 09, 2024, 01:23:16 AM
Philogene is quite the conundrum. It would be good if we could keep control of his future for a bit longer, until we see just how good he can be. I’ve said this before but he reminds me of Eze.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 09, 2024, 08:17:29 AM
Post by: Clampy on March 09, 2024, 09:00:54 AM
There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose
Yeah, that's pretty clear really.
Well they wouldn’t want to actually bring those 115 charges would they?
I think some of those go beyond FFP.
The fact that they won't even reveal the date/s these charges are being looked at is very odd indeed.
Post by: dekko on March 09, 2024, 09:12:26 AM
Yes Archer coming back is less than helpful from an FFP point of view.
Not ideal, but presumably if we have to buy him back for, say 15m on a 5 year deal, its only a 3m hit per year for ffp. So we're still better off for FFP than if we'd not sold him at all or just loaned him (obviously not taking into account what he could've done for us on the pitch).
Post by: Demitri_C on March 09, 2024, 09:19:43 AM
^^ Archer will be back, as far as I know we haven’t heard the same about Middle Ramsay.
Philogene is quite the conundrum. It would be good if we could keep control of his future for a bit longer, until we see just how good he can be. I’ve said this before but he reminds me of Eze.
He is more like bailey than eze in my opinion
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 09, 2024, 10:21:39 AM
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 09, 2024, 10:31:55 AM
^^ Archer will be back, as far as I know we haven’t heard the same about Middle Ramsay.
Philogene is quite the conundrum. It would be good if we could keep control of his future for a bit longer, until we see just how good he can be. I’ve said this before but he reminds me of Eze.
He is more like bailey than eze in my opinion
Those are my thoughts too.
A right footed Bailey.
Post by: Goldenballs on March 09, 2024, 01:49:45 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 09, 2024, 01:53:18 PM
So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.
Buy back yes - pretty sure that’s confirmed if they go down. the general consensus is that we must buy him back for less than we sold him.
A transfer designed by FFP. Instant cash on the income column whereas the (smaller) outgoings are spread over the duration of his contract.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 09, 2024, 02:29:53 PM
If Archer comes back, that's going to have an FFP impact.
Quite a small one though.
Post by: Goldenballs on March 09, 2024, 02:38:52 PM
So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.
Buy back yes - pretty sure that’s confirmed if they go down. the general consensus is that we must buy him back for less than we sold him.
A transfer designed by FFP. Instant cash on the income column whereas the (smaller) outgoings are spread over the duration of his contract.
Unless they can get a higher offer than whatever we've already agreed to? I'm guessing there's a specific date that the automatic buy back kicks in.
There must already be agreed terms he comes back on?
Post by: Matt C on March 09, 2024, 02:47:03 PM
So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.
Buy back yes - pretty sure that’s confirmed if they go down. the general consensus is that we must buy him back for less than we sold him.
A transfer designed by FFP. Instant cash on the income column whereas the (smaller) outgoings are spread over the duration of his contract.
Unless they can get a higher offer than whatever we've already agreed to? I'm guessing there's a specific date that the automatic buy back kicks in.
There must already be agreed terms he comes back on?
Think so, probably explains why it took a pretty long time to finalize the deal originally.
We sign him back for less than we sold him so it was basically a loan but we still book the full 15m transfer fee as profit for FFP. His return transfer fee will be spread over multiple years so not a massive short term impact (but still more millions that need to be offset). On top of that we could then sell him again. I think.
I miss the days when you didn’t need to be accountant to understand the game.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 09, 2024, 09:18:01 PM
I miss the days when you didn’t need to be accountant to understand the game.
No surprise that there's more accountancy chat these days as modern football has become more fashionable and 'sexier'.
Post by: VillaTim on March 09, 2024, 09:21:56 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 10, 2024, 12:25:32 AM
I miss the days when you didn’t need to be accountant to understand the game.
No surprise that there's more accountancy chat these days as modern football has become more dull and predictable.
FTFY
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 10, 2024, 12:47:48 AM
I miss the days when you didn’t need to be accountant to understand the game.
No surprise that there's more accountancy chat these days as modern football has become more dull and predictable.
FTFY
Accountancy jealously, like hair envy, is a terrible thing. :( Where are your Standards???
Post by: eamonn on March 10, 2024, 01:04:02 AM
Post by: Drummond on March 10, 2024, 09:40:52 AM
IFRS 10?
Surely it's FRS 102?
Post by: Drummond on March 10, 2024, 09:42:16 AM
I miss the days when you didn’t need to be accountant to understand the game.
No surprise that there's more accountancy chat these days as modern football has become more dull and predictable.
FTFY
Accountancy jealously, like hair envy, is a terrible thing. :( Where are your Standards???
When I look back at photos of me with hair... About 30 years ago... I'm content without.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 11, 2024, 10:15:15 AM
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202223
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2024, 10:42:53 AM
If anyone can bear it (I can't) here's today's blast from the past. The Swiss Ramble's take on our accounts:
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202223
Gate receipts, sponsorship, commercial and broadcasting set for another big jump this season (next year’s accounts), thanks to the UECL campaign, then another leap the year after from the Adidas deal and hopefully (fingers crossed, touch wood etc) Champions League.
Deloitte was first to publish our revenues, so something there to look out for in December/January time I think?
I’m predicting £250m revenue this season with wages mainly static without golden handshakes to Gerrard’s mob and golden hellos to Emery’s, and with some big earners to be removed and replaced.
£300m revenue next season I reckon. The big question is is that enough to cover us on PSR?
Post by: AV82EC on March 11, 2024, 11:27:19 AM
If anyone can bear it (I can't) here's today's blast from the past. The Swiss Ramble's take on our accounts:
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202223
Gate receipts, sponsorship, commercial and broadcasting set for another big jump this season (next year’s accounts), thanks to the UECL campaign, then another leap the year after from the Adidas and hopefully (fingers crossed, touch wood etc) Champions League.
Deloitte was first to publish our revenues, so something there to look out for in December/January time I think?
I’m predicting £250m revenue this season with wages mainly static without golden handshakes to Gerrard’s mob and golden hellos to Emery’s, and with some big earners to be removed and replaced.
£300m revenue next season I reckon. The big question is is that enough to cover us on PSR?
I’d concur with that Percy. There’ll be some pip squeaking ST increases as well let’s just hope they can keep that wage bill in check. I think we need to do some player trading this summer to help that revenue as well so Unai can shape the squad another step in his vision.
Post by: AlexAlexCropley on March 11, 2024, 11:29:53 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2024, 11:40:20 AM
Isn't there some type of review of the Ffp rules post season?
I think so. Failing that, or even in addition, we may see some or one ‘associated partner’ deal(s), like selling the training ground to ourselves, someone from the ownership group sponsoring us, naming rights etc.
Post by: dr.chekov on March 11, 2024, 08:15:06 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 11, 2024, 08:21:26 PM
Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules to be replaced as early as this summer by new system of financial regulation, Sky are reporting.
And hey presto, Man City's 115 charges miraculously disappear?
Post by: Monty on March 11, 2024, 08:31:11 PM
Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules to be replaced as early as this summer by new system of financial regulation, Sky are reporting.
And hey presto, Man City's 115 charges miraculously disappear?
Surely they wouldn't apply retroactively? Right?
...right?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 11, 2024, 08:57:15 PM
IFRS 10?
IAS 16 and 38 deal with deprecation.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 11, 2024, 10:35:30 PM
Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules to be replaced as early as this summer by new system of financial regulation, Sky are reporting.
Heard on Talksport earlier that it is rumoured to be something like clubs not being allowed to spend more than 85% of turnover of wages and transfer fees.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 11, 2024, 11:08:47 PM
Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules to be replaced as early as this summer by new system of financial regulation, Sky are reporting.
And hey presto, Man City's 115 charges miraculously disappear?
The charges are going back to 2017 and not all FFP. So no they shouldn't disappear because new rules are in.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2024, 11:35:49 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 11, 2024, 11:39:16 PM
Quote
The new financial system, likely to be based on Uefa's model, would replace the current profit and sustainability rules (PSR) which permit clubs to lose a maximum of £105m in a three-year spell.
Uefa's rules limit spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to a percentage of the club's revenue starting at 90% this season and reducing to 70% from 2025-26.
So as with all things, the more successful clubs can afford to pay stupid money and wages but the ones below them have the ladder drawn up so they can't compete.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2024, 11:46:02 PM
QuoteThe new financial system, likely to be based on Uefa's model, would replace the current profit and sustainability rules (PSR) which permit clubs to lose a maximum of £105m in a three-year spell.
Uefa's rules limit spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to a percentage of the club's revenue starting at 90% this season and reducing to 70% from 2025-26.
So as with all things, the more successful clubs can afford to pay stupid money and wages but the ones below them have the ladder drawn up so they can't compete.
How the fuck have 14 clubs voted for this?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2024, 11:47:30 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 12, 2024, 12:11:07 AM
QuoteThe new financial system, likely to be based on Uefa's model, would replace the current profit and sustainability rules (PSR) which permit clubs to lose a maximum of £105m in a three-year spell.
Uefa's rules limit spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to a percentage of the club's revenue starting at 90% this season and reducing to 70% from 2025-26.
So as with all things, the more successful clubs can afford to pay stupid money and wages but the ones below them have the ladder drawn up so they can't compete.
How the fuck have 14 clubs voted for this?
They haven't yet. It was in the article about the failed vote for EFL payments. Apparently lower down teams were stating why should they pay the same from their incomings as teams like Citeh are paying from theirs so no deal was reached. Another vote was due when the PSR replacements was decided.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 12, 2024, 12:47:26 AM
QuoteThe new financial system, likely to be based on Uefa's model, would replace the current profit and sustainability rules (PSR) which permit clubs to lose a maximum of £105m in a three-year spell.
Uefa's rules limit spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to a percentage of the club's revenue starting at 90% this season and reducing to 70% from 2025-26.
So as with all things, the more successful clubs can afford to pay stupid money and wages but the ones below them have the ladder drawn up so they can't compete.
How the fuck have 14 clubs voted for this?
They haven't yet. It was in the article about the failed vote for EFL payments. Apparently lower down teams were stating why should they pay the same from their incomings as teams like Citeh are paying from theirs so no deal was reached. Another vote was due when the PSR replacements was decided.
Well, let’s hope they fuck it off like a Tory government.
Over on twitter, people are talking about 70% of turnover being okay to spend on player wages, transfer fees and agents fees, which apparently is the system in Europe, but in Europe you’re allowed to go beyond that if the owners are prepared to guarantee they’re good for it.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 12, 2024, 09:35:40 AM
Post by: Risso on March 12, 2024, 09:46:43 AM
QuoteThe new financial system, likely to be based on Uefa's model, would replace the current profit and sustainability rules (PSR) which permit clubs to lose a maximum of £105m in a three-year spell.
Uefa's rules limit spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to a percentage of the club's revenue starting at 90% this season and reducing to 70% from 2025-26.
So as with all things, the more successful clubs can afford to pay stupid money and wages but the ones below them have the ladder drawn up so they can't compete.
How the fuck have 14 clubs voted for this?
At a guess:
Obviously most of the "seven clubs who are more contenders than us to be top seven" will want to vote for it, as it gives them more room to inflate their income and spend a proportion of it without worrying too much about losses. The seven or eight clubs who are eternally in a relegation battle won't be too concerned about what goes on at the top of the league, as clubs like Everton and Palace aren't ever going to be contenders to win anything, and they probably think they can use the rules to spend a bit more without living in fear of points deductions.
It's only clubs like us who are too good to worry about going down, but have a shit income compared to the other big clubs at the top end who are going to be materially disadvantaged.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 12, 2024, 09:50:32 AM
Football isn't for us anymore. It's for billionaires who want a pissing contest, sleazy dirtbags who only care about their own earnings, dodgy regimes who want people to forget they're evil sub-human scum, and the kind of people who just pick a club to 'support' based solely on current success and having bragging rights on twitter.
And we're now far enough along the path that a whole generation has grown up thinking this is how football is.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 12, 2024, 10:11:22 AM
I fell out of love with it years ago & only clinging on due to my love for Villa, but Im finding it very difficult to stay the course with the way that the status quo & the powers that be continually attempting to turn it into WWE Pro Wrestling...
Post by: tomd2103 on March 12, 2024, 10:20:26 AM
Well, it wouldn't be surprising. There are six clubs with a massive interest in maintaining the status quo, like any other large business will try to do if given the opportunity.
Beginning to suspect that it's not only those clubs that have an interest in maintaining the status quo. It seems to me that the whole structure of English and European football is built around the interests of the 'big' clubs. The media coverage in this country is now becoming blatantly tailored to armchair fans of certain clubs and any sense of impartiality has vanished long ago.
Post by: Three Spires Villa on March 12, 2024, 10:24:34 AM
Modern day football is absolutely exhausting.
I fell out of love with it overall years ago & only clinging on due to my love for Villa, but Im finding it very difficult to stay the course with the way that the status quo & the powers that be continually attempting to turn it into WWE Pro Wrestling...
Spot on
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2024, 10:32:54 AM
Post by: DB on March 12, 2024, 10:48:22 AM
Post by: sid1964 on March 12, 2024, 10:56:54 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 12, 2024, 10:57:55 AM
If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?
They'll have known that from the start, though.
Worth noting, this season Newcastle have played in the Champions League, got a new shirt sponsor which apparently is 40m a year (which was accepted as fair value precisely because they were in the CL, and got an Adidas shirt deal which allegedly has them in their 'elite' group of clubs).
So they're moving forward with their revenue. They already had higher commercial revenue than we do, and already have a significantly larger ground, which they are talking about making even larger.
We, on the other hand, are talking about shoe-horning in a couple of thousand extra seats over two years.
Where is the ambition from Heck, here?
Post by: DB on March 12, 2024, 11:00:18 AM
If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?
They'll have known that from the start, though.
Worth noting, this season Newcastle have played in the Champions League, got a new shirt sponsor which apparently is 40m a year (which was accepted as fair value precisely because they were in the CL, and got an Adidas shirt deal which allegedly has them in their 'elite' group of clubs).
So they're moving forward with their revenue. They already had higher commercial revenue than we do, and already have a significantly larger ground, which they are talking about making even larger.
We, on the other hand, are talking about shoe-horning in a couple of thousand extra seats over two years.
Where is the ambition from Heck, here?
But the rules are changing again. How this will play out, who the f**k knows, but you wonder this protecting the 6 is to stop any other attempt at a breakaway league.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 12, 2024, 11:09:34 AM
The wages to revenue percentage has been mentioned, but that isn't going to change a huge amount if it happens, as we already have one of the highest percentages in the league.
We desperately need to boost revenue. Things like LG and TV and GA+ seats, yes, that certainly all helps, but we are going to be stuck with one massive problem which needs to change to unlock the next wave of income, and that's the stadium.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 12, 2024, 11:15:26 AM
But the rules are changing again. How this will play out, who the f**k knows, but you wonder this protecting the 6 is to stop any other attempt at a breakaway league.
It's in part to protect the "Premier League product".
The status quo clubs bring in the most marketing money for the Premier League & the idea of selling Liverpool v ManC as a TV game to foreign audiences will bring in more money as trying to sell Burnley v Sheff Utd.
So it's financially in the best interests of the Premier League to keep the status quo as it is, just as much as it is in the best interests of the status quo clubs.
It's mutually beneficial for them to halt clubs like Villa & keep the status quo as it is.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 12, 2024, 11:22:50 AM
Post by: Simon Page on March 12, 2024, 11:22:58 AM
Post by: DB on March 12, 2024, 11:31:13 AM
But the rules are changing again. How this will play out, who the f**k knows, but you wonder this protecting the 6 is to stop any other attempt at a breakaway league.
It's in part to protect the "Premier League product".
The status quo clubs bring in the most marketing money for the Premier League & the idea of selling Liverpool v ManC as a TV game to foreign audiences will bring in more money as trying to sell Burnley v Sheff Utd.
So it's financially in the best interests of the Premier League to keep the status quo as it is, just as much as it is in the best interests of the status quo clubs.
It's mutually beneficial for them to halt clubs like Villa & keep the status quo as it is.
Yes, enough competition to keep people interested but not enough to disturb the current status
Post by: Gareth on March 12, 2024, 11:31:46 AM
So I may be missing something here but why would 14 clubs vote for this?
Guess those at the top will want it to maintain the status quo but there are a number of clubs that have no interest in heading towards the top 6 but also happy to finish year after year in mid table so they may well follow the top 6 lead.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 12, 2024, 11:35:13 AM
So I may be missing something here but why would 14 clubs vote for this?
Guess those at the top will want it to maintain the status quo but there are a number of clubs that have no interest in heading towards the top 6 but also happy to finish year after year in mid table so they may well follow the top 6 lead.
And it gives them an excuse not to spend money on transfers, while keeping the Premier League money coming in...
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 12, 2024, 11:40:24 AM
I wonder if anyone will ever try turning football into a sport; something uncontrolled and surprising. Probably wouldn't work.
It could work. Would have to see the numbers first.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 12, 2024, 11:40:59 AM
If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?But Newcastle already have 52k seats and are positioned far better than us to drive revenue.
Frankly if these new rules operate how I think they do, it's just as bad as the Superleague proposals in terms of pulling up the ladder.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 12, 2024, 11:46:46 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 12, 2024, 11:50:36 AM
So I take it this would still stop clubs having Stadium sponsorship at £50 million a year to up their turnover
That one was closed off a few years ago.
Post by: DB on March 12, 2024, 12:03:01 PM
If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?But Newcastle already have 52k seats and are positioned far better than us to drive revenue.
Frankly if these new rules operate how I think they do, it's just as bad as the Superleague proposals in terms of pulling up the ladder.
I am comparing to the current top teams. Newcastle owners may be itching to spend more than they currently can...which, as you say is bigger than ours.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 12, 2024, 12:22:23 PM
Back from twitter. Maguire says it’s good for the greedy 6, bad for Villa and Newcastle.
Someone quoted the below figures a few pages back and if they are correct then it isn't difficult to see exactly what these proposed P&S rules would mean:
This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
Post by: chrisw1 on March 12, 2024, 12:59:11 PM
Let me give an example here to clear it up for everyone, Man Utd, over £1b of debt, but with their £648m revenue last year they can spend £550m under the new rules on wages and transfers, if Ipswich get promoted their revenue will be around £30m for this season plus tv money
Post by: eamonn on March 12, 2024, 01:08:04 PM
Post by: olaftab on March 12, 2024, 01:24:36 PM
If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?I don't think our owners ever intended to do an Abu Dhabi however Saudi's definitely wanted to do that.
Post by: Rigadon on March 12, 2024, 01:27:19 PM
The only practical thing that I can see we’d be able to do would be to relocate from VP into a city centre stadium with a 60k capacity.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 12, 2024, 02:38:06 PM
It does, on the face of it, appear that if this goes ahead it would be time to concede that 7th (or every now and again 6th) really is the glass ceiling. A step closer to their ‘super league’.
The only practical thing that I can see we’d be able to do would be to relocate from VP into a city centre stadium with a 60k capacity.
Yeah, we would be looking at having to significantly increase our revenue if we wanted to take that next step on a longer term. I think our revenue will have increased this season and will continue to do so over the next few, but it won't be the kind of figures that will close the gap with those other clubs.
That said, we have been able to compete with them under Unai Emery so far, but if it does go ahead then we will be in a position again where we can be picked off by those clubs with greater finances.
It is all starting to point towards a very big dilemma facing the club and the fanbase really if we do want to take that next step.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 12, 2024, 04:10:20 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 12, 2024, 04:12:03 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 12, 2024, 04:13:56 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 12, 2024, 04:54:20 PM
Someone quoted the below figures a few pages back and if they are correct then it isn't difficult to see exactly what these proposed P&S rules would mean:
This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
No surprise that the ones with low wage to turnover are all the ones who have played in the Chumps league multiple times over the past 20 years. It is why we need to ensure we keep building for it season after season. Although still a surprise that Tottenham's is only £15 mil higher considering the players that they have been getting in. I'm assuming they have some big bonus system instead which I don't know if it is included in the wages figures.
Post by: AV82EC on March 12, 2024, 04:56:16 PM
Someone quoted the below figures a few pages back and if they are correct then it isn't difficult to see exactly what these proposed P&S rules would mean:
This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….
Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m
No surprise that the ones with low wage to turnover are all the ones who have played in the Chumps league multiple times over the past 20 years. It is why we need to ensure we keep building for it season after season. Although still a surprise that Tottenham's is only £15 mil higher considering the players that they have been getting in. I'm assuming they have some big bonus system instead which I don't know if it is included in the wages figures.
Let’s not do this, let’s really really not do this…..
Post by: Somniloquism on March 12, 2024, 05:53:15 PM
Post by: Rigadon on March 12, 2024, 07:48:35 PM
It does, on the face of it, appear that if this goes ahead it would be time to concede that 7th (or every now and again 6th) really is the glass ceiling. A step closer to their ‘super league’.
The only practical thing that I can see we’d be able to do would be to relocate from VP into a city centre stadium with a 60k capacity.
Yeah, we would be looking at having to significantly increase our revenue if we wanted to take that next step on a longer term. I think our revenue will have increased this season and will continue to do so over the next few, but it won't be the kind of figures that will close the gap with those other clubs.
That said, we have been able to compete with them under Unai Emery so far, but if it does go ahead then we will be in a position again where we can be picked off by those clubs with greater finances.
It is all starting to point towards a very big dilemma facing the club and the fanbase really if we do want to take that next step.
And one that might explain the recent u-turn on the north stand - I'd be surprised if clubs are finding out ab out this when we are. A part of me thinks that a move from VP might be the end for me as a match going fan (nobody would give a flying fuck, and wouldn't even if I were a ST holder which I haven't been for many many years), and another thinks it's the only way we can compete. I suppose it comes down to what's more important: heritage and 150 years of history and family shared experience, or competing for winning stuff, which is the DNA of a grand old institution such as Aston Villa.
My mind is changeable I suppose.
Post by: ROBBO on March 13, 2024, 08:15:24 AM
Post by: Villan82 on March 13, 2024, 08:32:40 AM
Aside from my obvious fondness for Villa Park, I would be concerned we would go down this route thinking the game, the rules and the football bubble is set on this track indefinitely and will keep going as it is. Things can change and in 8 or 9 years we could have a white elephant on our hands and be wondering why we didn't, keep hold of the stadium that sustained us in the best and worst of times
Post by: itbrvilla on March 13, 2024, 09:45:57 AM
Where would you relocate to? Brum central was solid when I lived there (before most of you were born) and i can only think it is more congested now. It would have to have all the benefits of space, transport and possible further growth.To the site where the gas towers were. Not too far from town to walk. Not far from Hockley, Aston etc.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 13, 2024, 09:54:37 AM
Where would you relocate to? Brum central was solid when I lived there (before most of you were born) and i can only think it is more congested now. It would have to have all the benefits of space, transport and possible further growth.To the site where the gas towers were. Not too far from town to walk. Not far from Hockley, Aston etc.
The problem with that is probably that it's not close enough to the city centre to encourage people to walk there, and is further away from the motorway than our current location, thus making it harder for drivers. A 'best of no worlds' scenario.
Also - not a great location for train users, whereas the current location at least has a station either side of it (even if the service is absolutely crap).
Post by: dorsetvillian on March 13, 2024, 11:22:51 AM
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 02:19:20 PM
Where would you relocate to? Brum central was solid when I lived there (before most of you were born) and i can only think it is more congested now. It would have to have all the benefits of space, transport and possible further growth.To the site where the gas towers were. Not too far from town to walk. Not far from Hockley, Aston etc.
The problem with that is probably that it's not close enough to the city centre to encourage people to walk there, and is further away from the motorway than our current location, thus making it harder for drivers. A 'best of no worlds' scenario.
Also - not a great location for train users, whereas the current location at least has a station either side of it (even if the service is absolutely crap).
It's a couple of hundred yards to the Expressway, and 5 minutes walk from Aston Uni. Once HS2 is in you're pretty close to that and it wouldn't be impossible to extend a tram down to it if you could get Street on side. For other stations Duddeston is probably a similar distance from there as Aston is from VP. Duddeston also has an unused platform (with double tracks) which could be fixed up and used to site a couple of 'specials' that only run on matchdays and sit there to fill up and go into the city. You'd need to work on making a decent path/route from the station to the ground and from the ground to the Uni (and by extension the city centre) but I think it wouldn't take much to make it a far more accessible ground than we have now and with all the extra space you could add coach and car parking as well as things like a box park, sports centre, etc.
Post by: Drummond on March 13, 2024, 02:20:42 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 02:25:51 PM
I thought that site had been earmarked for something else anyway?
Probably, but if we want to move but stay in the area it's easily the best option and has a lot of advantages over where we are, Especially with HS2.
Post by: Neil Hawkes on March 13, 2024, 02:26:08 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 02:31:45 PM
Move to Bodymoor Heath and build our own HS2 train station at the back end of the field.
Sadly HS2 doesn't go near there any more.
Post by: DB on March 13, 2024, 04:03:51 PM
Post by: Risso on March 13, 2024, 04:07:02 PM
Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
I can't see that being the way they'd like to go. It would leave us with all the existing problems in terms of access etc, and the additional one of where to play for two years.
Post by: DB on March 13, 2024, 04:08:21 PM
Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
I can't see that being the way they'd like to go. It would leave us with all the existing problems in terms of access etc, and the additional one of where to play for two years.
Yeah, the Alex is only viable option. Spuds had Wembley, so not an issue for them
Post by: chrisw1 on March 13, 2024, 04:09:51 PM
I'm with Paul, it would be an excellent site for us. I imagine it's earmarked for alternative use and / or would be too expensive, but a 65k seater there would be excellent.Where would you relocate to? Brum central was solid when I lived there (before most of you were born) and i can only think it is more congested now. It would have to have all the benefits of space, transport and possible further growth.To the site where the gas towers were. Not too far from town to walk. Not far from Hockley, Aston etc.
The problem with that is probably that it's not close enough to the city centre to encourage people to walk there, and is further away from the motorway than our current location, thus making it harder for drivers. A 'best of no worlds' scenario.
Also - not a great location for train users, whereas the current location at least has a station either side of it (even if the service is absolutely crap).
It's a couple of hundred yards to the Expressway, and 5 minutes walk from Aston Uni. Once HS2 is in you're pretty close to that and it wouldn't be impossible to extend a tram down to it if you could get Street on side. For other stations Duddeston is probably a similar distance from there as Aston is from VP. Duddeston also has an unused platform (with double tracks) which could be fixed up and used to site a couple of 'specials' that only run on matchdays and sit there to fill up and go into the city. You'd need to work on making a decent path/route from the station to the ground and from the ground to the Uni (and by extension the city centre) but I think it wouldn't take much to make it a far more accessible ground than we have now and with all the extra space you could add coach and car parking as well as things like a box park, sports centre, etc.
In terms of land value, I think our current site would be at the lower end of the range - the most obvious use being pretty low cost housing, so no real windfall there to assist.
I still fear for us over the next 8-10 years though if we do go down the redev route. The Emery era will be over and with the latest FFP proposals, I imagine after that time with our current stadium we'll more likely be in a position where the pyramid payments are of more concern to us than UCL income.
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 04:12:08 PM
Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
That still leaves you with problems caused by the shape of the plot. If you could push the trinity 10-15m into the park and/or buy out all the houses on Nelson Rd and/or buy out Witton Ln and Holte Rd you could get a footprint big enough to compare but you'd stil lstruggle to add in all the extra facilities in a good way and, as you say, you'd have to find somewhere to play for at least 18months. The temporary stands were fine for a summer athletics tournament but having bene there a lot during the games I wouldn't want to be going anywhere near the top of those in sub-zero, wet and windy conditions, it'd be vile (and probably too dangerous).
Post by: chrisw1 on March 13, 2024, 04:17:29 PM
The Alex isn't a viable option - it's 18,000 seats a mile away from the pitch. I'd imagine most likely would be Ricoh if we redevelop the current site. Owned by Mike Ashley he'd be desperate to do a commercial deal.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
I can't see that being the way they'd like to go. It would leave us with all the existing problems in terms of access etc, and the additional one of where to play for two years.
Yeah, the Alex is only viable option. Spuds had Wembley, so not an issue for them
Post by: algy on March 13, 2024, 04:37:08 PM
Wrexham have managed with a (admittedly smaller) temporary stand up one end all season whilst they rebuild their kop end.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
That still leaves you with problems caused by the shape of the plot. If you could push the trinity 10-15m into the park and/or buy out all the houses on Nelson Rd and/or buy out Witton Ln and Holte Rd you could get a footprint big enough to compare but you'd stil lstruggle to add in all the extra facilities in a good way and, as you say, you'd have to find somewhere to play for at least 18months. The temporary stands were fine for a summer athletics tournament but having bene there a lot during the games I wouldn't want to be going anywhere near the top of those in sub-zero, wet and windy conditions, it'd be vile (and probably too dangerous).
I'm not saying that I'd be overly thrilled to be in the cheap seats at the Alex, but for me it's basically the only option bar maybe ground sharing with Wolves but I'd guess that'd be reliant on them doing their phase 3 expansion to take the capacity up to 38,000
Post by: DB on March 13, 2024, 04:46:11 PM
The Alex isn't a viable option - it's 18,000 seats a mile away from the pitch. I'd imagine most likely would be Ricoh if we redevelop the current site. Owned by Mike Ashley he'd be desperate to do a commercial deal.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
I can't see that being the way they'd like to go. It would leave us with all the existing problems in terms of access etc, and the additional one of where to play for two years.
Yeah, the Alex is only viable option. Spuds had Wembley, so not an issue for them
It was around 30k for the games, but as pointed out not ideal.for winter / football. It was just a thought...
Ricoh is just over 32k, not ideal but may be workable. Barcelona have gone from 90k to the Olympic stadium of around 55k, quite a drop.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 13, 2024, 04:47:09 PM
The Alex isn't a viable option - it's 18,000 seats a mile away from the pitch. I'd imagine most likely would be Ricoh if we redevelop the current site. Owned by Mike Ashley he'd be desperate to do a commercial deal.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
I can't see that being the way they'd like to go. It would leave us with all the existing problems in terms of access etc, and the additional one of where to play for two years.
Yeah, the Alex is only viable option. Spuds had Wembley, so not an issue for them
The Alex did go up to 30k with the temp structure, but that was put in place for the 2 months of the games and had no protection from the elements. I doubt it would be a nice place to be in the middle of a Jan storm.
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 04:47:56 PM
The Alex isn't a viable option - it's 18,000 seats a mile away from the pitch. I'd imagine most likely would be Ricoh if we redevelop the current site. Owned by Mike Ashley he'd be desperate to do a commercial deal.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
I can't see that being the way they'd like to go. It would leave us with all the existing problems in terms of access etc, and the additional one of where to play for two years.
Yeah, the Alex is only viable option. Spuds had Wembley, so not an issue for them
I agree, I think the Ricoh is about the only option.
Post by: algy on March 13, 2024, 04:50:45 PM
* 50,000 folk paying £60 = £3,000,000. Do that 34 times a season and you're on £100m. I don't think it's insane to think that if we can get 25-30 home games a season plus some big gigs etc we might be up there.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 13, 2024, 04:52:15 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 04:55:50 PM
Wrexham have managed with a (admittedly smaller) temporary stand up one end all season whilst they rebuild their kop end.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
That still leaves you with problems caused by the shape of the plot. If you could push the trinity 10-15m into the park and/or buy out all the houses on Nelson Rd and/or buy out Witton Ln and Holte Rd you could get a footprint big enough to compare but you'd stil lstruggle to add in all the extra facilities in a good way and, as you say, you'd have to find somewhere to play for at least 18months. The temporary stands were fine for a summer athletics tournament but having bene there a lot during the games I wouldn't want to be going anywhere near the top of those in sub-zero, wet and windy conditions, it'd be vile (and probably too dangerous).
I'm not saying that I'd be overly thrilled to be in the cheap seats at the Alex, but for me it's basically the only option bar maybe ground sharing with Wolves but I'd guess that'd be reliant on them doing their phase 3 expansion to take the capacity up to 38,000
The difference in size between what Wrexham have and what we'd need to make the Alex viable is huge and creates a lot of extra problems. On top of that almost all of the fan facilities were temporary with food vans, security gates and toilets all being dropped in alongside the stands. Trying to maintain that sort of setup for 2 years would be really tough. That's just the tip of the iceberg as well.
Post by: paul_e on March 13, 2024, 04:56:30 PM
What about Old Trafford?
It's barely standing up!
Post by: algy on March 13, 2024, 05:00:11 PM
Yeah, that's fair enough. Changed my mind about it being a good option half way through writing it ;)Wrexham have managed with a (admittedly smaller) temporary stand up one end all season whilst they rebuild their kop end.Do a Spuds, build a new VP on site of the existing one? Just a small question where to move while it's under construction, I did think of Alexander Stadium and put a load of temp seating to get in up to a decent capacity, as they did with the Comm games, but that might cost a few Bob.
That still leaves you with problems caused by the shape of the plot. If you could push the trinity 10-15m into the park and/or buy out all the houses on Nelson Rd and/or buy out Witton Ln and Holte Rd you could get a footprint big enough to compare but you'd stil lstruggle to add in all the extra facilities in a good way and, as you say, you'd have to find somewhere to play for at least 18months. The temporary stands were fine for a summer athletics tournament but having bene there a lot during the games I wouldn't want to be going anywhere near the top of those in sub-zero, wet and windy conditions, it'd be vile (and probably too dangerous).
I'm not saying that I'd be overly thrilled to be in the cheap seats at the Alex, but for me it's basically the only option bar maybe ground sharing with Wolves but I'd guess that'd be reliant on them doing their phase 3 expansion to take the capacity up to 38,000
The difference in size between what Wrexham have and what we'd need to make the Alex viable is huge and creates a lot of extra problems. On top of that almost all of the fan facilities were temporary with food vans, security gates and toilets all being dropped in alongside the stands. Trying to maintain that sort of setup for 2 years would be really tough. That's just the tip of the iceberg as well.
Post by: Risso on March 13, 2024, 05:01:55 PM
Post by: Sdwbvf on March 13, 2024, 05:46:39 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 13, 2024, 05:47:10 PM
It’s not that bad, certainly no worse than large parts of VP.What about Old Trafford?
It's barely standing up!
It would be a pain in the arse but playing anywhere outside Brum would be but at least we would have plenty of capacity.
Bring back the days of the Football Special.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 13, 2024, 06:12:46 PM
By the time we get round to doing anything and needing somewhere for a couple of years, The King Power in Leicester will be expanded to 40,000, which will make it the biggest stadium within a reasonable distance.
Yep, Leicester for me. Unless small heath have built their 60k retractable tiers megadome by then.
Post by: Risso on March 13, 2024, 06:20:16 PM
By the time we get round to doing anything and needing somewhere for a couple of years, The King Power in Leicester will be expanded to 40,000, which will make it the biggest stadium within a reasonable distance.
Yep, Leicester for me. Unless small heath have built their 60k retractable tiers megadome by then.
Those tears won't be retractable mate!
Post by: Rotterdam on March 13, 2024, 06:20:30 PM
They'd happily take the £ and transport is easy. A couple of years of hardship.
Post by: Risso on March 13, 2024, 06:21:30 PM
what about Albion?
They'd happily take the £ and transport is easy. A couple of years of hardship.
Too small, doesn't even hold 27K.
Post by: The Edge on March 13, 2024, 06:45:29 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 13, 2024, 06:54:42 PM
I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Hear! Hear!
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 13, 2024, 06:57:37 PM
I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
Post by: The Edge on March 13, 2024, 07:01:54 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
Post by: Villan82 on March 13, 2024, 07:03:02 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The decision to not do the new stand is a head scratcher and people don't trust them
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 13, 2024, 07:19:22 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
They wouldn't announce it right now, though, because, well, what would they have to gain from it? If i were him, I wouldn't either.
There is clearly some reason the very late stage NS plans were ditched at the exact tiume we get aboard a stadium infrastructure specialist.
The minute the digger hits the ground in the North Stand, we are committing to the current location for at least 10-15 years. More, probably.
It would be a massive financial commitment to staying where we are, and I don't think he's prepared to do that.
That's why he is talking of adding 2.5k seats here and there, to tide us over in the meantime.
Tell you what, 5 years from today, come back to this post, ping me, and I'll give you 50 English pounds if we are not at that point known to be either moving or completely rebuilding where we are.
That's how positive I am.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 13, 2024, 07:21:46 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The NEC! That's a good idea. Why have we never discussed this?
Post by: LeeB on March 13, 2024, 07:32:44 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The NEC! That's a good idea. Why have we never discussed this?
Asda Minworth would be a better site.
Post by: luke95 on March 13, 2024, 07:36:13 PM
By the time we get round to doing anything and needing somewhere for a couple of years, The King Power in Leicester will be expanded to 40,000, which will make it the biggest stadium within a reasonable distance.
Yep, Leicester for me. Unless small heath have built their 60k retractable tiers megadome by then.
There's no way id travel to Leicester for home games personally.
I'd settle for the Alex with restriction on numbers.
I still think the Alex will be our long term home if we have to move
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 13, 2024, 07:54:23 PM
Weirdly we are the opposite position where we have the reason and some funding just not the land. I suspect Comcast (or whatever they’re called) have clocked opportunity this and will be pressuring Villa, the council and government to provide a suitable space at an equitable cost.
I think the pieces could fall into place quickly once the land problem is unlocked.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 13, 2024, 07:54:44 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The NEC! That's a good idea. Why have we never discussed this?
Asda Minworth would be a better site.
I trust this is an insider's blaspheme that a mere convert like me is ignorant of. Because if it isn't...
Post by: tomd2103 on March 13, 2024, 07:55:04 PM
By the time we get round to doing anything and needing somewhere for a couple of years, The King Power in Leicester will be expanded to 40,000, which will make it the biggest stadium within a reasonable distance.
Yep, Leicester for me. Unless small heath have built their 60k retractable tiers megadome by then.
There's no way id travel to Leicester for home games personally.
I'd settle for the Alex with restriction on numbers.
I still think the Alex will be our long term home if we have to move
Drove past it the other day and did wonder about that as a potential.site for a new ground. Probably a big enough site to really expand the existing stadium and build something much bigger. Transport issues would still be a big problem though (potentially worse) unless they did something with Perry Barr station.
Post by: Villan82 on March 13, 2024, 08:03:00 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
They wouldn't announce it right now, though, because, well, what would they have to gain from it? If i were him, I wouldn't either.
There is clearly some reason the very late stage NS plans were ditched at the exact tiume we get aboard a stadium infrastructure specialist.
The minute the digger hits the ground in the North Stand, we are committing to the current location for at least 10-15 years. More, probably.
It would be a massive financial commitment to staying where we are, and I don't think he's prepared to do that.
That's why he is talking of adding 2.5k seats here and there, to tide us over in the meantime.
Tell you what, 5 years from today, come back to this post, ping me, and I'll give you 50 English pounds if we are not at that point known to be either moving or completely rebuilding where we are.
That's how positive I am.
I sincerely hope you are wrong but fear you are right and a completely unnecessary stadium build at a new site will be foisted on us when we have a site that can be developed to match what we require.
Post by: Gareth on March 13, 2024, 08:10:13 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The NEC! That's a good idea. Why have we never discussed this?
Asda Minworth would be a better site.
I was thinking knock down One Stop build a ground with a few shop units on the site too :-)
Post by: DB on March 13, 2024, 10:22:10 PM
We could do a spurs and go to Wembley. Transport infrastructure is fabulous...
HS2 may be built by then...ha. How far is Old Oak Common to Wembley?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 13, 2024, 11:00:55 PM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The NEC! That's a good idea. Why have we never discussed this?
Asda Minworth would be a better site.
I was thinking knock down One Stop build a ground with a few shop units on the site too :-)
That could genuinely be a go-er.
A return to Perry Barr.
Post by: Rory on March 14, 2024, 01:40:30 AM
It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
The NEC! That's a good idea. Why have we never discussed this?
Asda Minworth would be a better site.
I was thinking knock down One Stop build a ground with a few shop units on the site too :-)
That could genuinely be a go-er.
A return to Perry Barr.
I think I posited this a while ago, though not in any way claiming originality.
The site is easily big enough, and its only major occupants seem to be Asda and fast food outlets, which presumably would welcome the extra customers.
The existing bus ranks could easily accommodate additional services up and down the A34 to town and Walsall, the A453 to Sutton and the Kingstanding Rd, plus the 11A and 11C.
Still an easy trip by car to the Expressway or to the M6 which links to the M5, M40 and M42 pretty locally.
You'd also have Perry Barr rail station which has recently been upgraded, and the potential for an extension of the Metro line from town. There is tonnes of space on the Northern platform to develop a state of the art station facility for those heading into town.
Then there are a lot of empty flats built for the Commonwealth Games that I imagine investors wouldn't mind cutting their losses on to allow conversion into a hotel or two.
So we'd be boosting our own revenue; retaining the local leisure and retail offer; providing a much-needed hub, improved access and transport provision north of the city; and helping to deliver returns on a currently dead investment.
(Or maybe I'm too deep into Paddy's world of PR bollocks* and everything I say is a nightmare!)
*I also work in PR bollocks
Post by: Chap on March 14, 2024, 07:08:41 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 14, 2024, 08:36:28 AM
Post by: Rory on March 14, 2024, 08:59:45 AM
1.40, Rory?! You accuse me of working in PR, at a time I could conceivably be up myself (for clarity, I wasn't up - myself or anyone else)?!! I do not work in PR, I work in marketing and communications, which, as you know, is nothing like PR!
Sorry, sorry.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 14, 2024, 09:11:42 AM
1.40, Rory?! You accuse me of working in PR, at a time I could conceivably be up myself (for clarity, I wasn't up - myself or anyone else)?!! I do not work in PR, I work in marketing and communications, which, as you know, is nothing like PR!
Did Ealing just PR himself not working in PR?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 14, 2024, 09:16:50 AM
1.40, Rory?! You accuse me of working in PR, at a time I could conceivably be up myself (for clarity, I wasn't up - myself or anyone else)?!! I do not work in PR, I work in marketing and communications, which, as you know, is nothing like PR!
Did Ealing just PR himself not working in PR?
Rates available upon request.
Post by: LeeB on March 14, 2024, 09:18:59 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 14, 2024, 09:23:23 AM
Always had him down as more HR than PR, explaining to you what a wonderful opportunity you've been given by having your role made redundant.
Don't be like that mate. And stop all this nonsense about your dog not liking you. I happen to have a recent photo of you and your best friend on a brisk walk to Asda Minworth and you both look delightful.
(https://i.ibb.co/mRjz2Bg/Jasper-dog.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mRjz2Bg)
Post by: Somniloquism on March 14, 2024, 09:50:57 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 14, 2024, 09:59:13 AM
I'm not sure what the obsession with the Alex is.By the time we get round to doing anything and needing somewhere for a couple of years, The King Power in Leicester will be expanded to 40,000, which will make it the biggest stadium within a reasonable distance.
Yep, Leicester for me. Unless small heath have built their 60k retractable tiers megadome by then.
There's no way id travel to Leicester for home games personally.
I'd settle for the Alex with restriction on numbers.
I still think the Alex will be our long term home if we have to move
Firstly, it's the largest athletics stadium in the UK. BCC spent £75m on it just before the Commonwealth games and I can't see them or the Government sanctioning selling off a facility like that without retaining a running track and even with retractable stands that makes for a shit stadium.
Secondly, access is pretty shit and so is local parking. Even with hundreds of coaches shipped in, pretty staggered travel times and only 30k capacity, it was still pretty chaotic getting there for the commonwealth games. Imagine double the number all arriving at the same time.
In terms of using it as a temp location, how would you facilitate PL games in an 18k capacity for 2 years when we have 30k season ticket holders? Why would you want to when you can almost certainly do a deal for Coventry?
Post by: algy on March 14, 2024, 10:00:28 AM
I agree with paulie here. I half expect something to be announced during the 150th anniversary celebrations - whether that's a heavily remodelled Villa Park, or a move somewhere else.It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
They wouldn't announce it right now, though, because, well, what would they have to gain from it? If i were him, I wouldn't either.
There is clearly some reason the very late stage NS plans were ditched at the exact tiume we get aboard a stadium infrastructure specialist.
The minute the digger hits the ground in the North Stand, we are committing to the current location for at least 10-15 years. More, probably.
It would be a massive financial commitment to staying where we are, and I don't think he's prepared to do that.
That's why he is talking of adding 2.5k seats here and there, to tide us over in the meantime.
Tell you what, 5 years from today, come back to this post, ping me, and I'll give you 50 English pounds if we are not at that point known to be either moving or completely rebuilding where we are.
That's how positive I am.
And honestly, I don't care what NSWE might've said in the past about staying at Villa Park. The new profit & sustainability rules are a perfect get out clause - we know we said we'd never do X, but that was before New Thing happened. The reality is that New Thing means that we can't do X and the only possible way forward is Y.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 14, 2024, 10:08:32 AM
I think it is close to fully let with over 60 retailers.I was thinking knock down One Stop build a ground with a few shop units on the site too :-)
That could genuinely be a go-er.
A return to Perry Barr.
I think I posited this a while ago, though not in any way claiming originality.
The site is easily big enough, and its only major occupants seem to be Asda and fast food outlets, which presumably would welcome the extra customers.
The existing bus ranks could easily accommodate additional services up and down the A34 to town and Walsall, the A453 to Sutton and the Kingstanding Rd, plus the 11A and 11C.
Still an easy trip by car to the Expressway or to the M6 which links to the M5, M40 and M42 pretty locally.
You'd also have Perry Barr rail station which has recently been upgraded, and the potential for an extension of the Metro line from town. There is tonnes of space on the Northern platform to develop a state of the art station facility for those heading into town.
Then there are a lot of empty flats built for the Commonwealth Games that I imagine investors wouldn't mind cutting their losses on to allow conversion into a hotel or two.
So we'd be boosting our own revenue; retaining the local leisure and retail offer; providing a much-needed hub, improved access and transport provision north of the city; and helping to deliver returns on a currently dead investment.
It's a good site, but I'd think the investment value of the shopping centre would be far higher than a brownfield elsewhere.
Post by: DB on March 14, 2024, 10:40:24 AM
I agree with paulie here. I half expect something to be announced during the 150th anniversary celebrations - whether that's a heavily remodelled Villa Park, or a move somewhere else.It's not just Heck though. No one involved with Aston Villa has ever stated that we are moving away from B6 unless you include HDE and his plans to build a stadium near the NEC.I don't know why we are endlessly debating this because the club has stated categorically that we are not leaving Villa Park. I for one am very glad of that.
Yes, Heck, the same person who categorically stated they'd confer with the fans over the new crest. That one.
They wouldn't announce it right now, though, because, well, what would they have to gain from it? If i were him, I wouldn't either.
There is clearly some reason the very late stage NS plans were ditched at the exact tiume we get aboard a stadium infrastructure specialist.
The minute the digger hits the ground in the North Stand, we are committing to the current location for at least 10-15 years. More, probably.
It would be a massive financial commitment to staying where we are, and I don't think he's prepared to do that.
That's why he is talking of adding 2.5k seats here and there, to tide us over in the meantime.
Tell you what, 5 years from today, come back to this post, ping me, and I'll give you 50 English pounds if we are not at that point known to be either moving or completely rebuilding where we are.
That's how positive I am.
And honestly, I don't care what NSWE might've said in the past about staying at Villa Park. The new profit & sustainability rules are a perfect get out clause - we know we said we'd never do X, but that was before New Thing happened. The reality is that New Thing means that we can't do X and the only possible way forward is Y.
Basically what I have said. But who knows what Heck will come up with.
Post by: Risso on March 14, 2024, 10:44:57 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 14, 2024, 12:09:15 PM
I suspect BCC would not be happy to let their ‘showcase’ empty apartments be overlooking a football stadium. They got rid of the flyover because of the view!!
WOAH!
Wait. Perry Barr flyover is gone?
Post by: Somniloquism on March 14, 2024, 12:19:03 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 14, 2024, 12:19:44 PM
Brings back memories as a kid going up to see my grandparents in Perry Barr.
Post by: paul_e on March 14, 2024, 12:31:42 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 14, 2024, 12:53:46 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5297477,-1.8850098,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 14, 2024, 12:57:33 PM
Has there ever been any discussion about the University sports ground - The Pavillion as a potential site?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5297477,-1.8850098,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Can you imagine trying to get away from there?
Post by: LeeB on March 14, 2024, 01:20:59 PM
Though would be handy for funeralled opponents.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 14, 2024, 01:55:33 PM
You're right, no doubt it would be awful - I thought the Alex was bad enough. But as a sizable chunk of land in the vicinity I thought it would have been in the conversation.Has there ever been any discussion about the University sports ground - The Pavillion as a potential site?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5297477,-1.8850098,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Can you imagine trying to get away from there?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 14, 2024, 01:57:17 PM
Even further away from existing transport links, and looking over a cemetery.
Though would be handy for funeralled opponents.
Doubt we'll move there unless our FFP situation is grave.
Post by: algy on March 14, 2024, 01:58:19 PM
Post by: Rory on March 14, 2024, 02:11:58 PM
I think it is close to fully let with over 60 retailers.I was thinking knock down One Stop build a ground with a few shop units on the site too :-)
That could genuinely be a go-er.
A return to Perry Barr.
I think I posited this a while ago, though not in any way claiming originality.
The site is easily big enough, and its only major occupants seem to be Asda and fast food outlets, which presumably would welcome the extra customers.
The existing bus ranks could easily accommodate additional services up and down the A34 to town and Walsall, the A453 to Sutton and the Kingstanding Rd, plus the 11A and 11C.
Still an easy trip by car to the Expressway or to the M6 which links to the M5, M40 and M42 pretty locally.
You'd also have Perry Barr rail station which has recently been upgraded, and the potential for an extension of the Metro line from town. There is tonnes of space on the Northern platform to develop a state of the art station facility for those heading into town.
Then there are a lot of empty flats built for the Commonwealth Games that I imagine investors wouldn't mind cutting their losses on to allow conversion into a hotel or two.
So we'd be boosting our own revenue; retaining the local leisure and retail offer; providing a much-needed hub, improved access and transport provision north of the city; and helping to deliver returns on a currently dead investment.
It's a good site, but I'd think the investment value of the shopping centre would be far higher than a brownfield elsewhere.
Fair enough, I guess I just don't like One Stop!
Post by: Neil Hawkes on March 14, 2024, 02:36:03 PM
Sheeeeit.Move to Bodymoor Heath and build our own HS2 train station at the back end of the field.
Sadly HS2 doesn't go near there any more.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 14, 2024, 02:45:35 PM
Has there ever been any discussion about the University sports ground - The Pavillion as a potential site?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5297477,-1.8850098,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
looking at that map I have just seen the Doug Ellis Sports centre ????
Post by: luke95 on March 14, 2024, 02:54:26 PM
Has there ever been any discussion about the University sports ground - The Pavillion as a potential site?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5297477,-1.8850098,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Moor Ln is not a big enough site anyway.
Post by: The Edge on March 14, 2024, 03:23:31 PM
BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
Post by: The Edge on March 14, 2024, 03:25:44 PM
I think it is and the neighbours are pretty quiet.Has there ever been any discussion about the University sports ground - The Pavillion as a potential site?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5297477,-1.8850098,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Moor Ln is not a big enough site anyway.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 14, 2024, 03:35:57 PM
BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
How would that work?
We can't just buy an entire road, either - you can't just put up a stadium halway down a road and block it, you'd need to re-route the road, which would use a massive chunk of any land you'd bought in the park in the first place.
Aston Hall is a Grade 1 listed building, nobody is going to be allowing roads or stadiums to get too close to it.
Post by: Chap on March 14, 2024, 03:41:04 PM
The place looks much better without it to be honest.Have to agree and I don’t think the traffic at rush hour is any worse than before.
That said, it cost £27m to demolish and the apartments are still empty, so what was the point?
Post by: algy on March 14, 2024, 03:42:44 PM
I know bugger all about this sort of thing, and I'm sure it shows, but couldn't you build a tunnel or something for the road to go under? Like the cut and cover type thing they did with the early London underground lines.BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
How would that work?
We can't just buy an entire road, either - you can't just put up a stadium halway down a road and block it, you'd need to re-route the road, which would use a massive chunk of any land you'd bought in the park in the first place.
Aston Hall is a Grade 1 listed building, nobody is going to be allowing roads or stadiums to get too close to it.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 14, 2024, 04:24:12 PM
I know bugger all about this sort of thing, and I'm sure it shows, but couldn't you build a tunnel or something for the road to go under? Like the cut and cover type thing they did with the early London underground lines.BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
How would that work?
We can't just buy an entire road, either - you can't just put up a stadium halway down a road and block it, you'd need to re-route the road, which would use a massive chunk of any land you'd bought in the park in the first place.
Aston Hall is a Grade 1 listed building, nobody is going to be allowing roads or stadiums to get too close to it.
That’s real big money. Be cheaper to buy a row of houses behind the Witton Lane so we could build higher there. Plus there is space between the stand and the pitch on that side which could be better utilised. If there were no restrictions behind that stand we could rebuild the North and the Witton and marry them up, with the vision of doing the same with the Holte eventually. I reckon we could fit 60/65k in our current plot. Ideally I do want 70k + though.
Never mind the transport and parking, we’d get there somehow.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 14, 2024, 04:46:18 PM
It may not be considered as ideal, but it's a small slice and the Council would be facilitating huge investment in the area.
Post by: Villan82 on March 14, 2024, 06:01:01 PM
I had never thought of Aston park, I just assumed it was a no-go and that Witton Lane and Witton End were our only chance.
What you said about reorientation the pitch got me thinking. Maybe we could move the pitch a bit towards trinity Road giving more space on the other side for a bigger stand? The Holte could stay as is but joined up with both lower tiers? Now, this might sound totally daft but the plans for the North redevelopment was clever in that the lower tier wrapped into Trinity but the Upper Tier was distinct, If we could do something like that at the other end we'd maximise the site while retaining something distinct and authentically Villa. if you look at that video render by Bondiboot it should a sort of 'angled' join between the Trinity and the new North Stand and I think that would look really well on a redeveloped Villa Park.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 14, 2024, 06:09:14 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 14, 2024, 06:25:09 PM
In theory, buy out and knockdown houses in Nelson Road. Then we have that area, the car park, the old academy and the offices to build the new ground without the worry of trinity road cutting into the ground shape or having to build over Witton. Then the old holte area can be used for the parking or other things.
Good thinking. Though, the Holte End and facade would be the one part of the current et up i would be looking to retain to have some continuity from the past (inspiration from the old Trinity)
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 14, 2024, 06:56:30 PM
Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 15, 2024, 12:20:18 AM
Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
3. probably a very big one there. Wonder what percentage of those crowds back.then could walk to the ground from their house?
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 15, 2024, 12:32:07 AM
Post by: wince on March 15, 2024, 07:52:40 AM
Photo Reconnaissance???1.40, Rory?! You accuse me of working in PR, at a time I could conceivably be up myself (for clarity, I wasn't up - myself or anyone else)?!! I do not work in PR, I work in marketing and communications, which, as you know, is nothing like PR!
Did Ealing just PR himself not working in PR?
Post by: PeterWithe on March 15, 2024, 08:00:45 AM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.
Wonder where this is as HS2 into Bham hasn’t changed?
Post by: Villan82 on March 15, 2024, 08:05:24 AM
Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
I know, that wasn't really my point. I doubt there were facilities in the 1940s to keep thousands of people in or around the ground so they arrived and departed in a more staggered fashion. A rebuilt Villa Park would have bars, cafes, restaurants, WareHouse/Villa Live etc.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 15, 2024, 09:03:53 AM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.
Wonder where this is as HS2 into Bham hasn’t changed?
I would have thought the only HS2 land not needed in Birmingham would be down to the Northern lines and as the same line for North and South went out to about Minworth before splitting I would be interested to. Obviously less tracks now needed but would that be 13 acres on one patch?
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 15, 2024, 09:22:15 AM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.
Wonder where this is as HS2 into Bham hasn’t changed?
I would have thought the only HS2 land not needed in Birmingham would be down to the Northern lines and as the same line for North and South went out to about Minworth before splitting I would be interested to. Obviously less tracks now needed but would that be 13 acres on one patch?
Don’t know. They described a significant development of resi towers and offices* so these could be subdivided by existing roads (or wherever) rather than one single plot.
*entirely hypothetical development used to work out the value of the land.
Post by: DB on March 15, 2024, 09:32:35 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 15, 2024, 10:41:50 AM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.
The plot thickens!
If you think where the astroturf pitch is on Aston Park, then there is quite a bit of land there that could be used for redevelopment, especially if the pitch was turned round.
I don't know if you can just close roads, but if Witton Lane remained as it is and Trinity Road remained as it is up to Nelson Road on one side and to the road that goes up to Aston Hall on the other, you're only talking about a short section of road that I doubt sees much traffic during the week and is closed on matchdays anyway.
Post by: itbrvilla on March 15, 2024, 10:46:50 AM
Wouldn't make money on none matchdays. That's part of the problem.Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
I know, that wasn't really my point. I doubt there were facilities in the 1940s to keep thousands of people in or around the ground so they arrived and departed in a more staggered fashion. A rebuilt Villa Park would have bars, cafes, restaurants, WareHouse/Villa Live etc.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 15, 2024, 10:57:31 AM
Wouldn't make money on none matchdays. That's part of the problem.Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
I know, that wasn't really my point. I doubt there were facilities in the 1940s to keep thousands of people in or around the ground so they arrived and departed in a more staggered fashion. A rebuilt Villa Park would have bars, cafes, restaurants, WareHouse/Villa Live etc.
Simply not a good location for those types of activities outside of matchday. We went to Villa restaurant a couple of time in the summer 8 or 9 years ago, it was nice especially walking through Trinity Corporate area. Not sure it would have the same feel on a dark November evening.
Edgbaston makes money on conference events and Asian Weddings and there is ample space around and near the ground to facilitate stuff. It is also a mile from city centre in a much nicer part of the city.
Post by: oldhill_avfc on March 15, 2024, 11:44:37 AM
BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
The club should really trying to leverage its position with BCC. We need land around VP, including changes to trinity road and witton lane’s road layout, and those houses between VP and the train stations.
They need money and investment into the area.
If that means helping the council with compulsory purchases and rehousing, then so be it.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 15, 2024, 11:49:23 AM
Wouldn't make money on none matchdays. That's part of the problem.Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
I know, that wasn't really my point. I doubt there were facilities in the 1940s to keep thousands of people in or around the ground so they arrived and departed in a more staggered fashion. A rebuilt Villa Park would have bars, cafes, restaurants, WareHouse/Villa Live etc.
Simply not a good location for those types of activities outside of matchday. We went to Villa restaurant a couple of time in the summer 8 or 9 years ago, it was nice especially walking through Trinity Corporate area. Not sure it would have the same feel on a dark November evening.
Edgbaston makes money on conference events and Asian Weddings and there is ample space around and near the ground to facilitate stuff. It is also a mile from city centre in a much nicer part of the city.
That's exactly it, and part of the reason I think they will move us us, no matter how good they make the ground and the facilities there, even if they rebuilt it, it's still going to be in a rough, deprived area well out of the city centre which nobody is going to want to go to outside matchdays.
Facilities like restaurants and bars will never survive to make enough money on that basis, either - look how many closed down pubs there are in a 1 mile radius of the ground.
Someone will doubtlessly point out that Tottenham's ground is in a shit hole, but it's at least a shit hole in London and has access to a demographic no other UK city has.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 15, 2024, 11:50:55 AM
BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
The club should really trying to leverage its position with BCC. We need land around VP, including changes to trinity road and witton lane’s road layout, and those houses between VP and the train stations.
They need money and investment into the area.
If that means helping the council with compulsory purchases and rehousing, then so be it.
Most of those homes are privately owned, how is the council going to get involved in 'rehousing' the owners?
And I don't like the tone of this at all (not having a go at you, I mean the general concept) - we're talking about people here, taking their homes off them and shifting them elsewhere as if they were unwanted pets or something, that's not the way we should be acting.
Post by: LeeB on March 15, 2024, 11:53:46 AM
Wouldn't make money on none matchdays. That's part of the problem.Now these are the ideas I can get fully behind. Use the existing site, we can fulfill our potential there. if we could handle 70k in the 1940s why not in the future?
Because
1. Cars
2. No trams.
3. Changing demographics.
I know, that wasn't really my point. I doubt there were facilities in the 1940s to keep thousands of people in or around the ground so they arrived and departed in a more staggered fashion. A rebuilt Villa Park would have bars, cafes, restaurants, WareHouse/Villa Live etc.
Simply not a good location for those types of activities outside of matchday. We went to Villa restaurant a couple of time in the summer 8 or 9 years ago, it was nice especially walking through Trinity Corporate area. Not sure it would have the same feel on a dark November evening.
Edgbaston makes money on conference events and Asian Weddings and there is ample space around and near the ground to facilitate stuff. It is also a mile from city centre in a much nicer part of the city.
That's exactly it, and part of the reason I think they will move us us, no matter how good they make the ground and the facilities there, even if they rebuilt it, it's still going to be in a rough, deprived area well out of the city centre which nobody is going to want to go to outside matchdays.
Facilities like restaurants and bars will never survive to make enough money on that basis, either - look how many closed down pubs there are in a 1 mile radius of the ground.
Someone will doubtlessly point out that Tottenham's ground is in a shit hole, but it's at least a shit hole in London and has access to a demographic no other UK city has.
It doesn't matter which shithole part of London you build in as everyone can walk down a hole and be transported to any other part of the city in next to no time.
Every part of Birmingham has exactly the opposite problem.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 15, 2024, 11:57:31 AM
Cantilevered or more sensibly priced, have posts across the road to hold up the structure & have the Witton Lane just go "through" the stadium...
The Estadio Vicente Calderón has a dual carriageway running through theirs in a similar way.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Aprobado_el_nuevo_ámbito_Mahou-Calderón_%2801%29.jpg/800px-Aprobado_el_nuevo_ámbito_Mahou-Calderón_%2801%29.jpg)
Post by: LeeB on March 15, 2024, 11:58:32 AM
Couldn't the stadium be built up over the road?
Cantilevered or more sensibly priced. have posts across the road to hold up the structure & have the Witton Lane just go "through" the stadium...
The Estadio Vicente Calderón has a dual carriageway running through theirs in a similar way.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Aprobado_el_nuevo_ámbito_Mahou-Calderón_%2801%29.jpg/800px-Aprobado_el_nuevo_ámbito_Mahou-Calderón_%2801%29.jpg)
Proper shithole that stadium was though, like St Andrews in the sun.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 15, 2024, 11:58:52 AM
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 15, 2024, 12:02:01 PM
Proper shithole that stadium was though, like St Andrews in the sun.
Im not talking about copying their architecture.
Im just showing an example of where they have done what I think we could do to expand/rebuild the stadium on the current site without having to move the tenants beyond Witton Lane...
It might be a terrible idea cos it blocks Susan Smiths sunlight into her conservatory, but its an option to investigate...
Post by: Risso on March 15, 2024, 12:02:55 PM
Most of those homes are privately owned, how is the council going to get involved in 'rehousing' the owners?
And I don't like the tone of this at all (not having a go at you, I mean the general concept) - we're talking about people here, taking their homes off them and shifting them elsewhere as if they were unwanted pets or something, that's not the way we should be acting.
On the other hand, they might snatch the club's hand off to move to a nicer area with a bit of cash as well.
Post by: LeeB on March 15, 2024, 12:03:47 PM
Proper shithole that stadium was though, like St Andrews in the sun.
Im not talking about copying their architecture.
Im just showing an example of where they have done what I think we could do to expand/rebuild the stadium on the current site without having to move the tenants beyond Witton Lane...
It might be a terrible idea cos it blocks Susan Smiths sunlight into her conservatory, but its an option to investigate...
Not disagreeing mate, just bought that memory to mind.
Post by: Gareth on March 15, 2024, 03:02:27 PM
BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
The club should really trying to leverage its position with BCC. We need land around VP, including changes to trinity road and witton lane’s road layout, and those houses between VP and the train stations.
They need money and investment into the area.
If that means helping the council with compulsory purchases and rehousing, then so be it.
Most of those homes are privately owned, how is the council going to get involved in 'rehousing' the owners?
And I don't like the tone of this at all (not having a go at you, I mean the general concept) - we're talking about people here, taking their homes off them and shifting them elsewhere as if they were unwanted pets or something, that's not the way we should be acting.
100% this…
Post by: eamonn on March 15, 2024, 05:01:56 PM
Even though he was still young and learning, Aguero would often be the highlight of another erratic Atléti display. Kind of like watching us with Grealish in his pomp.
But it was no fun seeing them toil against Vallodolid while getting soaked in the January rain. The stadium reminded me a bit of Goodison. Just became run-down in the end.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 15, 2024, 07:53:50 PM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.It looks like Villa Park is situated on around ten acres of land (thank you, Google Earth). I suspect we need more than an extra three acres to achieve whatever it is we're going to achieve.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 15, 2024, 08:15:52 PM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.
It looks like Villa Park is situated on around ten acres of land (thank you, Google Earth). I suspect we need more than an extra three acres to achieve whatever it is we're going to achieve.
I recall reading that the Emirates site is 17-18 acres.
Post by: Risso on March 15, 2024, 08:30:12 PM
I heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.It looks like Villa Park is situated on around ten acres of land (thank you, Google Earth). I suspect we need more than an extra three acres to achieve whatever it is we're going to achieve.
If you measure everything from where Trinity Road and Witton Lane meet near the Holte Pub, then include all of the actual ground and North Stand car park etc up to Witton Road, it's close to 17 acres. The main problem is the shape of the land (long and narrow) and the roads surrounding it.
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 15, 2024, 08:53:37 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 15, 2024, 08:59:22 PM
Post by: Chris Harte on March 15, 2024, 09:12:41 PM
It would be mental to include a car park in any new development, at VP or elsewhere.That would depend on the location, though. In the city centre I'd be inclined to agree. Somewhere else with limited public transport options and car parking as part of the development would be essential.
Post by: Beard82 on March 15, 2024, 09:31:39 PM
I thought an extra 3 acres isn't important - its what you do with it that countsI heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.It looks like Villa Park is situated on around ten acres of land (thank you, Google Earth). I suspect we need more than an extra three acres to achieve whatever it is we're going to achieve.
Post by: The Edge on March 15, 2024, 09:44:51 PM
I'm talking about maybe 50 metres into the park which would not impact on Aston Hall in any way. There's already a lot going on there anyway in the form of amenities which the club would need to replace. And you can just buy roads and close them. The expansion of Wing Yip in Nechells is just one example. Two roads have been closed and taken over by the business. Witton Lane could easily be remodelled but at a cost to the club. These are not new ideas. Spurs did it. Arsenal did it. That's just two examples.BCC are skint, do they have any land (or offices we can flatten) they can flog to us?Buying up a chunk of land in Aston Park and buying Trinity Rd itself would enable us to shift the ground sideways like Spurs did. The council are broke so it could be worth a try.
How would that work?
We can't just buy an entire road, either - you can't just put up a stadium halway down a road and block it, you'd need to re-route the road, which would use a massive chunk of any land you'd bought in the park in the first place.
Aston Hall is a Grade 1 listed building, nobody is going to be allowing roads or stadiums to get too close to it.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 15, 2024, 09:56:12 PM
I'm talking about maybe 50 metres into the park which would not impact on Aston Hall in any way. There's already a lot going on there anyway in the form of amenities which the club would need to replace. And you can just buy roads and close them. The expansion of Wing Yip in Nechells is just one example. Two roads have been closed and taken over by the business. Witton Lane could easily be remodelled but at a cost to the club. These are not new ideas. Spurs did it. Arsenal did it. That's just two examples.I actually think the focus needs to be on the Witton Lane side of the ground. While the Doug Ellis stand has boxes it lacks premium seating. If it mirrored the Trinity (perhaps without the corners sliced off) it might go some way to fulfilling the hospitality provision that the club/the owners want.
Post by: eamonn on March 15, 2024, 10:03:43 PM
I thought an extra 3 acres isn't important - its what you do with it that countsI heard today that 13 acres of land will soon be coming into the market in Birmingham. In the city centre as its land connected to the aborted HS2.It looks like Villa Park is situated on around ten acres of land (thank you, Google Earth). I suspect we need more than an extra three acres to achieve whatever it is we're going to achieve.
The opening chat-up line for any self-respecting bachelor-farmer.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 15, 2024, 10:09:51 PM
I'm talking about maybe 50 metres into the park which would not impact on Aston Hall in any way. There's already a lot going on there anyway in the form of amenities which the club would need to replace. And you can just buy roads and close them. The expansion of Wing Yip in Nechells is just one example. Two roads have been closed and taken over by the business. Witton Lane could easily be remodelled but at a cost to the club. These are not new ideas. Spurs did it. Arsenal did it. That's just two examples.
No they didn't just buy them and close them. The council had to allow it as it is public land. They approved it over the objections of other business in Railway Terrace because Wing Yip stated if the council didn't, they would close up and move to another city. I doubt Villa could offer that threat.
Post by: Meanwood Villa on March 15, 2024, 10:28:26 PM
I'm talking about maybe 50 metres into the park which would not impact on Aston Hall in any way. There's already a lot going on there anyway in the form of amenities which the club would need to replace. And you can just buy roads and close them. The expansion of Wing Yip in Nechells is just one example. Two roads have been closed and taken over by the business. Witton Lane could easily be remodelled but at a cost to the club. These are not new ideas. Spurs did it. Arsenal did it. That's just two examples.
No they didn't just buy them and close them. The council had to allow it as it is public land. They approved it over the objections of other business in Railway Terrace because Wing Yip stated if the council didn't, they would close up and move to another city. I doubt Villa could offer that threat.
Let me hear you make some noise for your Guildford Villa!
Post by: The Edge on March 15, 2024, 11:27:50 PM
I doubt that Wing Yip said they would close up and move and even if they did the largest council in Europe wouldn’t let a business the size of that bully them. They bought the Mitre years ago in the hope of buying the land and expanding but Eurohire have stood firm. Anyway my idea about expanding into Aston Park wasn't really all that thought out. I don't even know if councils are allowed to sell off park recreation space. I'm just brainstorming with everyone else.I'm talking about maybe 50 metres into the park which would not impact on Aston Hall in any way. There's already a lot going on there anyway in the form of amenities which the club would need to replace. And you can just buy roads and close them. The expansion of Wing Yip in Nechells is just one example. Two roads have been closed and taken over by the business. Witton Lane could easily be remodelled but at a cost to the club. These are not new ideas. Spurs did it. Arsenal did it. That's just two examples.
No they didn't just buy them and close them. The council had to allow it as it is public land. They approved it over the objections of other business in Railway Terrace because Wing Yip stated if the council didn't, they would close up and move to another city. I doubt Villa could offer that threat.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 15, 2024, 11:29:50 PM
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/wing-yip-to-expand-its-nechells-headquarters-131044
It was a tory council then so yes, business would come first.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 15, 2024, 11:43:38 PM
I doubt that Wing Yip said they would close up and move and even if they did the largest council in Europe wouldn’t let a business the size of that bully them. They bought the Mitre years ago in the hope of buying the land and expanding but Eurohire have stood firm. Anyway my idea about expanding into Aston Park wasn't really all that thought out. I don't even know if councils are allowed to sell off park recreation space. I'm just brainstorming with everyone else.I'm talking about maybe 50 metres into the park which would not impact on Aston Hall in any way. There's already a lot going on there anyway in the form of amenities which the club would need to replace. And you can just buy roads and close them. The expansion of Wing Yip in Nechells is just one example. Two roads have been closed and taken over by the business. Witton Lane could easily be remodelled but at a cost to the club. These are not new ideas. Spurs did it. Arsenal did it. That's just two examples.
No they didn't just buy them and close them. The council had to allow it as it is public land. They approved it over the objections of other business in Railway Terrace because Wing Yip stated if the council didn't, they would close up and move to another city. I doubt Villa could offer that threat.
Well, they sold us a bit of it before, so there is precedent.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 16, 2024, 08:47:48 AM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.
Think it all ties in to what the ambitions of the club and the owners are really Dave. If we are managed properly and redeveloped the North Stand to take capacity over 50,000 then I can't see why we couldn't become firmly established in the top 8 sort of positions over the next decade and a regular fixture in the Europa and Conference competitions. If we genuinely want to take that much fabled 'next step' though and try and join the elites of English and European competition, then that clearly isn't going to be enough.
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 10:13:07 AM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.
This post tells me the tide is turning and I find it sad. Playing at Villa Park for the last time? I can't even imagine it.
Post by: Risso on March 16, 2024, 10:35:19 AM
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 16, 2024, 11:09:02 AM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.
This post tells me the tide is turning and I find it sad. Playing at Villa Park for the last time? I can't even imagine it.
Neither can I, but someone said something to me yesterday that I couldn't argue with - you either accept modern football and its commercialism or you can be the Albion.
Post by: Richard E on March 16, 2024, 11:10:25 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 16, 2024, 11:30:10 AM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.
Think it all ties in to what the ambitions of the club and the owners are really Dave. If we are managed properly and redeveloped the North Stand to take capacity over 50,000 then I can't see why we couldn't become firmly established in the top 8 sort of positions over the next decade and a regular fixture in the Europa and Conference competitions. If we genuinely want to take that much fabled 'next step' though and try and join the elites of English and European competition, then that clearly isn't going to be enough.
I don’t think it would be enough, and I am thinking this is Heck’s thinking.
Yes, much better facilities in the new north stand. But that just changes the question to the Witton and what we don there.
It gets to the point where we spend enormous amounts of money on a site in - let’s be honest - a ropey area with transport infrastructure that can’t cope. Or we move to a location which is a game changer. That can only be near the city centre.
There’s a large surface car park adjacent to the Aston University campus, for example. That’d be a brilliant location. Largely in the city centre, big plot.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHy3DHg2xQuU7hLd8?g_st=ic
Post by: Chris Harte on March 16, 2024, 11:35:19 AM
Why is it again that Birmingham doesn't have any sort of underground? Is it the local geology? Or is it due to political/city planning decisions taken in the past?
If it's the latter, what would it take to build one? Even for the two-and-a-quarter miles as the crow flies from New St station to Trinity Road I realise there'd likely be little change out of a nine-figure sum, as well as the likely planning nightmare.
I think I've gone into brainstorming mode because I **really** don't want us to move from Villa Park.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 16, 2024, 11:40:00 AM
Post by: Rigadon on March 16, 2024, 11:41:43 AM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.
This post tells me the tide is turning and I find it sad. Playing at Villa Park for the last time? I can't even imagine it.
Neither can I, but someone said something to ne yesterday that I couldn't argue with - you either accept modern football and its commercialism or you can be the Albion.
I think I’m coming round to the idea too. Which surprises me a lot.
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 11:50:08 AM
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 11:52:24 AM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.
Think it all ties in to what the ambitions of the club and the owners are really Dave. If we are managed properly and redeveloped the North Stand to take capacity over 50,000 then I can't see why we couldn't become firmly established in the top 8 sort of positions over the next decade and a regular fixture in the Europa and Conference competitions. If we genuinely want to take that much fabled 'next step' though and try and join the elites of English and European competition, then that clearly isn't going to be enough.
I don’t think it would be enough, and I am thinking this is Heck’s thinking.
Yes, much better facilities in the new north stand. But that just changes the question to the Witton and what we don there.
It gets to the point where we spend enormous amounts of money on a site in - let’s be honest - a ropey area with transport infrastructure that can’t cope. Or we move to a location which is a game changer. That can only be near the city centre.
There’s a large surface car park adjacent to the Aston University campus, for example. That’d be a brilliant location. Largely in the city centre, big plot.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHy3DHg2xQuU7hLd8?g_st=ic
The site looks a tad smaller than where we are but I guess could be built in such a way from scratch to maximise what we do.
To me it would be odd to have built the new academy in the shadow of Villa Park and then plan to bulldoze Villa Park.
Post by: The Edge on March 16, 2024, 12:19:05 PM
Just a thought, that's sort of at a tangent, but sort of not.The high water table myth was debunked years ago. Central Birmingham is criss crossed with tunnels. There's a tunnel between Snow Hill Station and Moor Street Station for example. It's a pure lack of interest from Central government stretching back donkeys years. In fact Birmingham is still the biggest city in Europe not to have an underground or fully integrated tram network.
Why is it again that Birmingham doesn't have any sort of underground? Is it the local geology? Or is it due to political/city planning decisions taken in the past?
If it's the latter, what would it take to build one? Even for the two-and-a-quarter miles as the crow flies from New St station to Trinity Road I realise there'd likely be little change out of a nine-figure sum, as well as the likely planning nightmare.
I think I've gone into brainstorming mode because I **really** don't want us to move from Villa Park.
Post by: AV82EC on March 16, 2024, 12:19:18 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 12:25:38 PM
If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 16, 2024, 12:32:38 PM
I am not sure how much the site is worth once you take The Villa out of it.If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
Not much is my guess.
Post by: The Edge on March 16, 2024, 12:39:36 PM
When we had a tax crisis under shit shoes wasn't the land where we built the new academy valued at 4m? So by that metric the land Villa Park sits on might be worth 10m tops.I am not sure how much the site is worth once you take The Villa out of it.If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
Not much is my guess.
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 12:41:51 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 16, 2024, 01:46:02 PM
No idea, but a lump of land in Aston that would need to be demolished in order to get another use out of it is not in my view prime real estate.When we had a tax crisis under shit shoes wasn't the land where we built the new academy valued at 4m? So by that metric the land Villa Park sits on might be worth 10m tops.I am not sure how much the site is worth once you take The Villa out of it.If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
Not much is my guess.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 16, 2024, 02:25:13 PM
Post by: The Edge on March 16, 2024, 02:28:12 PM
The serpentine was sold for 7m in 2006. That’s probably a guide for land value. Certainly not prime by anyone’s definition.And that would of been perfect for a brand new stadium.
Post by: oldhill_avfc on March 16, 2024, 02:42:02 PM
We’re ASTON Villa, not Birmingham Villa and certainly not Birmingham City. What is a club if it’s not attached to its heritage and roots?
Estimates on here suggest you need 15-20 acres. We’ve already got most of it. If we needed to trade it in, then we’d get virtually nothing for it.
The current site is surrounded by parkland, next to a Grade 1 listed building. There are historic pubs and churches nearby. The land has been used for 150 years for recreation.
There’s a motorway junction within a couple of miles, and 2 railway stations even closer.
The current site is limited by a couple of minor roads that could be bypassed or simply closed permantly.
The surrounding houses are poor quality. The whole area would benefit from social and economic regeneration.
Virtually all the new stadia (Spurs, Wembley, even the Olympic Park) show what’s achievable.
The council is in a dire mess, it’s a golden opportunity for a win-win for everyone.
And finally with regard to possibly needing to compulsory purchase. This isn’t a case of treating the residents badly, more a situation of providing compensation for them moving for the greater good of the locality, the city and the wider region.
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 03:43:48 PM
Reading posts on here I think I almost resigned to the club making this decision even though as you point out we have potential at our historic home.
The original redevelopment plan was put forward as part of a new era for Aston and Witton but reading posts online a lot of people seem to think the area is beyond regeneration and we have to move (not something I agree with at all)
I'd add, just because Liverpool were scummy in how they treated locals ahead of their redevelopment does not mean any changes to residential in the area would be handled the same way they handled it
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 16, 2024, 03:48:13 PM
If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
We probably would sell, but I don’t think it would put much of a dent in the cost of a new ground. And don’t forget that as a club we’ve already sold it to Nas and Wes.
Post by: Villan82 on March 16, 2024, 03:54:32 PM
If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
We probably would sell, but I don’t think it would put much of a dent in the cost of a new ground. And don’t forget that as a club we’ve already sold it to Nas and Wes.
So let me get this right
1. Because of Villa park's location the planned redevelopment would not 'get us to where we need to be'
2. Because of this we have to build a new stadium
3. However, we won't generate any finance from selling our existing location
4. So we'd be looking at spending the guts of £800m- £1bn on a brand new stadium, bringing to the pot peanuts from the sale of Villa Park
5. And this makes more financial sense than spending £100m on a new bells nd whistles North Stand and looking to do something with the rest of Villa Park?
FFP is definitely broken if that's what we have to do! I am not an accountant but this is ridiculous. If Villa Park was like Goodison Park (falling apart) i would see the logic but we clearly have something we can work with!
Post by: oldhill_avfc on March 16, 2024, 03:55:26 PM
Oldhill, I agree wholeheartedly with every word but I fear that's not what Mr Heck has in mind or why we cancelled our redevelopment.
Reading posts on here I think I almost resigned to the club making this decision even though as you point out we have potential at our historic home.
The original redevelopment plan was put forward as part of a new era for Aston and Witton but reading posts online a lot of people seem to think the area is beyond regeneration and we have to move (not something I agree with at all)
I'd add, just because Liverpool were scummy in how they treated locals ahead of their redevelopment does not mean any changes to residential in the area would be handled the same way they handled it
I would like to believe Heck cancelled the development of only part of the ground due it not delivering what’s needed in the long run. I don’t think it’s necessarily indicative of a lack of commitment to the site in general.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 16, 2024, 05:14:36 PM
It is not FFP that is stopping Stadium development or a move, in fact you could argue it makes the need to generate revenue from the stadium an imperative.If we’re hoping to become a hyper club we’d keep Villa Park to use for the Women’s team.
Surely we would have to sell it to finance a new site?
We probably would sell, but I don’t think it would put much of a dent in the cost of a new ground. And don’t forget that as a club we’ve already sold it to Nas and Wes.
So let me get this right
1. Because of Villa park's location the planned redevelopment would not 'get us to where we need to be'
2. Because of this we have to build a new stadium
3. However, we won't generate any finance from selling our existing location
4. So we'd be looking at spending the guts of £800m- £1bn on a brand new stadium, bringing to the pot peanuts from the sale of Villa Park
5. And this makes more financial sense than spending £100m on a new bells nd whistles North Stand and looking to do something with the rest of Villa Park?
FFP is definitely broken if that's what we have to do! I am not an accountant but this is ridiculous. If Villa Park was like Goodison Park (falling apart) i would see the logic but we clearly have something we can work with!
Post by: algy on March 16, 2024, 05:52:57 PM
Maybe just possibly a city centre-ish site would need less parking - there's none at the Emirates - so that's a chunk of space saved. We also wouldn’t need somewhere like the Holte. The more I think about it, the more I ask what McGregor, Ramsey and Rinder would have done.Yeah, i have to say that on different days I have different views on it.
On the one half, I suspect McGregor, Ramsay and Rinder would not balk at providing Villa with the best possible chance at competing at the highest possible level, and we should move to a brand new, top class city centre stadium.
The other half thinks that I've a strong emotional attachment to Villa Park, that the local area hives the club its character and part of what makes the club feel special to me, that Villa Park is still in decent nick and any land we'd need to buy would cost a lot more than we'd get from selling our current land, and we'd probably be better off buying some land off BCC and/or from local residents
It's a hard one
Post by: Demitri_C on March 16, 2024, 06:07:55 PM
Post by: Rigadon on March 16, 2024, 06:28:31 PM
I think there would uproar from a majority of our fans if we tried to move from VP
I’m starting to think there wouldn’t.
If they had announced it with somebody line Gerrard in charge, mid table etc, it would feel different to how it’s starting to feel (to me at least).
Like Algy, I feel different about on a daily basis, but has you asked me a year ago I’d be staunchly against. Now… today, if pushed, with the right circumstances… hmm.
Post by: TelfordVilla on March 16, 2024, 07:01:15 PM
Post by: charlatan on March 16, 2024, 07:05:04 PM
In fact Birmingham is still the biggest city in Europe not to have an underground or fully integrated tram network.How does a tram system qualify as fully integrated?
Post by: Chris Harte on March 16, 2024, 07:09:45 PM
It doesn't.In fact Birmingham is still the biggest city in Europe not to have an underground or fully integrated tram network.How does a tram system qualify as fully integrated?
In my opinion it's a joke. It doesn't even run half the time.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 16, 2024, 07:16:00 PM
Id love to agree with you mate but alot of our fan base moan about any little detail. The badge being one example of many.I think there would uproar from a majority of our fans if we tried to move from VP
I’m starting to think there wouldn’t.
If they had announced it with somebody line Gerrard in charge, mid table etc, it would feel different to how it’s starting to feel (to me at least).
Like Algy, I feel different about on a daily basis, but has you asked me a year ago I’d be staunchly against. Now… today, if pushed, with the right circumstances… hmm.
I personally don't live in brum so i dont have that love round the local area there as probably some would who have been st holders for 20 years+. I personally think the surrounding area of witton is not great and we all know how horrific the public transport system is around there
Post by: charlatan on March 16, 2024, 07:18:51 PM
He was saying it wasn't which I assume to be correct, yet I don't really understand what full integration looks like.It doesn't.In fact Birmingham is still the biggest city in Europe not to have an underground or fully integrated tram network.How does a tram system qualify as fully integrated?
In my opinion it's a joke. It doesn't even run half the time.
Given I work in transport I hear lots of discussion of integration, although that's often in the context of ticketing as well as ease of transferring between modes. Does it have to have the same operator as connecting public transport for example?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 16, 2024, 07:28:04 PM
Id love to agree with you mate but alot of our fan base moan about any little detail.
*raises eyebrow*
Post by: Chris Harte on March 16, 2024, 07:31:34 PM
I'd assume it is wide coverage of the area it claims to serve, with links between buses, trains and tram.He was saying it wasn't which I assume to be correct, yet I don't really understand what full integration looks like.It doesn't.In fact Birmingham is still the biggest city in Europe not to have an underground or fully integrated tram network.How does a tram system qualify as fully integrated?
In my opinion it's a joke. It doesn't even run half the time.
Given I work in transport I hear lots of discussion of integration, although that's often in the context of ticketing as well as ease of transferring between modes. Does it have to have the same operator as connecting public transport for example?
The fact it is called Midlands Metro, despite having only a single line for a couple of decades, tells you what a misnoma it is.
Post by: Beard82 on March 16, 2024, 07:36:50 PM
I think the North Stand was a great idea, along with the stuff suggested - I think it was cancelled cos it wasn't Hecks idea.
Wasn't a big fan of CP at the time - but I think he got the club and what made it special. Our history and Heritage needs to be leaned into. The marketing they did and still do is poundshop - doesn't lean on this - and most of the offering is still stuck in the 1990s.
I would happily spend more money on match days if I could - but instead have to wait and watch a load of kids stand around. My brother has run pubs - and explained what there doing wrong its just basics.
To be fair I was chatting to a Bournmouth fan who is consulting for us and he said he found the whole experience brilliant at VP - second only to Craven Cottage.
When you look at it compared to other sporting venues - its just so badly ran. I go to the cricket reguarly for test matches and they run them so much better. I get they have more space but the principles stand.
Post by: charlatan on March 16, 2024, 07:38:21 PM
The fact it is called Midlands Metro, despite having only a single line for a couple of decades, tells you what a misnoma it is.
Well it clearly can't be a network until there's more than one line and the one there is seems to compete with rather than complement other modes, so yeah it looks pretty useless.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 16, 2024, 07:53:07 PM
I would happily spend more money on match days if I could - but instead have to wait and watch a load of kids stand around. My brother has run pubs - and explained what there doing wrong its just basics.I was having a chat with a Wolves fan in the pub this afternoon. He has a season ticket in their South Bank and it sounded like they have similar issues to what people complain of with VP here. If he wants a pint at half time he'll have to miss fifteen minutes of the game.
Post by: The Man With A Stick on March 16, 2024, 08:11:20 PM
There are so many reasons why expansion and a wholsale redevelopment of the current site makes sense.
We’re ASTON Villa, not Birmingham Villa and certainly not Birmingham City. What is a club if it’s not attached to its heritage and roots?
Out first ground was in Perry Barr though, so should we move back up there?
I'm kind of swaying towards moving now (or a total rebuild on the same site if we can somehow sort out some additional land), but only if we build the best bloody ground in the country. Something along the lines of Dortmund on the inside though, rather than some shite soulless bowl like Arsenal or Man City.
Villa Park was the envy of the country, then Herbert started tarting it up on the cheap and made a mess of it. We should build something that makes us stand out for the next 100 years.
Post by: Richard E on March 16, 2024, 08:11:59 PM
I would happily spend more money on match days if I could - but instead have to wait and watch a load of kids stand around. My brother has run pubs - and explained what there doing wrong its just basics.I was having a chat with a Wolves fan in the pub this afternoon. He has a season ticket in their South Bank and it sounded like they have similar issues to what people complain of with VP here. If he wants a pint at half time he'll have to miss fifteen minutes of the game.
That sounds like a massive incentive to have a half time pint at Molineux, to be honest.
Post by: Beard82 on March 16, 2024, 08:15:31 PM
Its just not ran properly - they have such a limited range - why its not all pre-poured. There margins must be huge enough to afford wastage, and they would be able to get data on what to expect.I would happily spend more money on match days if I could - but instead have to wait and watch a load of kids stand around. My brother has run pubs - and explained what there doing wrong its just basics.I was having a chat with a Wolves fan in the pub this afternoon. He has a season ticket in their South Bank and it sounded like they have similar issues to what people complain of with VP here. If he wants a pint at half time he'll have to miss fifteen minutes of the game.
I know they are limited for space but there must be answers to it. I know it sounds stupid but worked on a burger strand for a charity - local butchers lent us all the ingredients and tools.
Three middle-age - half cut men - where the "chef" explained he had never cooked for more than 4 people before. Between us we managed to organise it so that there was a smooth workflow with a decent number of punters. (Ok this sounds like an episode of the apprentice). But christ just manage it properly and they would double turnover.
Not saying that fixes FFP and we wont need sell dougie all of a sudden.
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 16, 2024, 08:35:06 PM
I would happily spend more money on match days if I could - but instead have to wait and watch a load of kids stand around. My brother has run pubs - and explained what there doing wrong its just basics.I was having a chat with a Wolves fan in the pub this afternoon. He has a season ticket in their South Bank and it sounded like they have similar issues to what people complain of with VP here. If he wants a pint at half time he'll have to miss fifteen minutes of the game.
The difference is that for us it's a bad thing.
Post by: Beard82 on March 16, 2024, 08:39:29 PM
Well they would have still be back in plenty of time for stoppage timeI would happily spend more money on match days if I could - but instead have to wait and watch a load of kids stand around. My brother has run pubs - and explained what there doing wrong its just basics.I was having a chat with a Wolves fan in the pub this afternoon. He has a season ticket in their South Bank and it sounded like they have similar issues to what people complain of with VP here. If he wants a pint at half time he'll have to miss fifteen minutes of the game.
The difference is that for us it's a bad thing.
Post by: Villan82 on March 17, 2024, 09:21:53 AM
[/quote]
Id love to agree with you mate but alot of our fan base moan about any little detail. The badge being one example of many.
[/quote]
I know that's not the point you're making mate but the way I see it, the badge and the North Stand are two good examples of club dithering making an unnecessary distraction.
1. The badge was sorted in a 2022 consultation and all set for roll out in May 2023. Plenty of noise about the big reveal being canned at the 11th hour in May. We have now had an additional year of speculation and arguments that could all have been avoided. They have gone away completely from the badge fans voted for whereas they could, easily, have 'fixed it'. We have also had a season of having two different badges (or is it three?)
2. Same with Villa Park. They released plans that 99% of people could get behind. They were plans that made sense and looked to capitalize on the best crowds any of us can remember. There was also a plan for offering more pre- and post- match offerings behind the new stand. Then they announce the 'pause', 'too many seats too fast' etc. And now nobody knows. Are they going to fleece 41k every week for ever or are they planning to move us.
I think all of the 'moaning' here is firmly on the shoulders of the club for the way the past 9-10 months have been handled
Post by: caster troy on March 17, 2024, 10:13:02 AM
I’d be against going somewhere else for convenience like the NEC or another random location, that just wouldn’t feel right.
Post by: Risso on March 17, 2024, 10:41:23 AM
Post by: LeeB on March 17, 2024, 10:53:36 AM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
But those heaving bars are a problem for the club as that's potentially lost revenue.
I don't see a city centre move appealing to the club for that reason, too many other places to spend your money before and after the game.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 17, 2024, 11:24:43 AM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
But those heaving bars are a problem for the club as that's potentially lost revenue.
I don't see a city centre move appealing to the club for that reason, too many other places to spend your money before and after the game.
Yes, that’s a concern. We’re far enough away to have a captive audience where we are.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 17, 2024, 11:40:05 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 17, 2024, 11:57:31 AM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
The Principality Stadium in Cardiff is another example of a city centre stadium. I suppose rugby has the 'benefit' that fans can drink during the game, so they can coin it in while fans are in the stadium.
Post by: Steve67 on March 17, 2024, 12:12:15 PM
Surely that's just a challenge the club needs to rise to, i.e. if they're already on your premises, you have an advantage. Just make sure that what you're offering isn't shit/unaffordable.
This. For me, there is a balance for the club to meet and this is it. Moving away from Aston means a complete loss of identity. It's what gives us/gave us our unique status. Buy the streets, redevelop around Villa Park.
Post by: gpbarr on March 17, 2024, 12:26:03 PM
I think there would uproar from a majority of our fans if we tried to move from VP
I’m starting to think there wouldn’t.
If they had announced it with somebody line Gerrard in charge, mid table etc, it would feel different to how it’s starting to feel (to me at least).
Like Algy, I feel different about on a daily basis, but has you asked me a year ago I’d be staunchly against. Now… today, if pushed, with the right circumstances… hmm.
Yep that feels right to me. For all the emotion around sticking in our current location, I just dont see how it fits in with the direction the club (& its owners) are taking. As was said earlier on this thread, football is now big business (like it or not) and if you want to maximise revenues (which we must), the club needs a stadium, the infrastructure, a location, and the modern facilities to achieve that - a city centre location, that will maximise footfall and overcome the nightmare that is getting to VP today, is an inevitabilty to me. I think most fans, while sad about the move, will quickly get on board (as has happened with other storied clubs) especially, if the product on the pitch is delivering the results we all want
Post by: algy on March 17, 2024, 12:26:51 PM
The Principality Stadium is great, my favourite 'modern' stadium. If we were building a new ground, I'd want us to take a lot of cues from that. City centre location, stands that feel like they're almost on top of the pitch, retractable roof so we can turn it in to a giant city centre arena.Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
The Principality Stadium in Cardiff is another example of a city centre stadium. I suppose rugby has the 'benefit' that fans can drink during the game, so they can coin it in while fans are in the stadium.
I think my overall feeling is that I don't particularly want us to leave Villa Park as I think, for all it's faults, it's not a bad site and it has a lot of history attached to it. But if we were to move, I'd want it to be so that we have the stadium that every other club wants. Like Spurs' ground at the moment, but bigger, better, end visually stunning. It should be like the Holte façade, where even though we all know it's a new(ish) pastiche of the old Trinity Road stand, in 20 years time people will look at ot and assume its been that way for a hundred years.
Post by: Villan82 on March 17, 2024, 12:48:15 PM
However I think it was daft in the extreme to go so big and so far with the plans for a redeveloped North Stand if there was any chance they were still contemplating a move. And that applies whether or to they got Heck for this purpose or Heck came in and pushed for it. Either way, I think the club has been bedeviled by this kind of lurching from one thing to another for too long.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 17, 2024, 02:06:46 PM
Surely that's just a challenge the club needs to rise to, i.e. if they're already on your premises, you have an advantage. Just make sure that what you're offering isn't shit/unaffordable.
This. For me, there is a balance for the club to meet and this is it. Moving away from Aston means a complete loss of identity. It's what gives us/gave us our unique status. Buy the streets, redevelop around Villa Park.
The identity question is a big one. We are a Birmingham club and I think a move to the city centre would tie in with that identity, as well as giving the city a boost.
A move to the NEC or somewhere equally far out would mean a loss of identity to me.
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 17, 2024, 04:44:03 PM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
But those heaving bars are a problem for the club as that's potentially lost revenue.
I don't see a city centre move appealing to the club for that reason, too many other places to spend your money before and after the game.
Yes, that’s a concern. We’re far enough away to have a captive audience where we are.
Realistically, how much do the Villa take from people who would go elsewhere if they had the option? Certainly less than they'd get from another ten thousand in the ground.
Post by: The Man With A Stick on March 17, 2024, 05:01:06 PM
The Principality Stadium is great, my favourite 'modern' stadium. If we were building a new ground, I'd want us to take a lot of cues from that. City centre location, stands that feel like they're almost on top of the pitch, retractable roof so we can turn it in to a giant city centre arena.Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
The Principality Stadium in Cardiff is another example of a city centre stadium. I suppose rugby has the 'benefit' that fans can drink during the game, so they can coin it in while fans are in the stadium.
I think my overall feeling is that I don't particularly want us to leave Villa Park as I think, for all it's faults, it's not a bad site and it has a lot of history attached to it. But if we were to move, I'd want it to be so that we have the stadium that every other club wants. Like Spurs' ground at the moment, but bigger, better, end visually stunning. It should be like the Holte façade, where even though we all know it's a new(ish) pastiche of the old Trinity Road stand, in 20 years time people will look at ot and assume its been that way for a hundred years.
I said similar yesterday, I only want us to move if we create something the rest of the country envies. The last development of the stadium 30 years ago was completely half-arsed, we need to learn from that mistake.
Post by: Risso on March 17, 2024, 05:49:56 PM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
But those heaving bars are a problem for the club as that's potentially lost revenue.
I don't see a city centre move appealing to the club for that reason, too many other places to spend your money before and after the game.
Yes, that’s a concern. We’re far enough away to have a captive audience where we are.
I'm not sure it would work like that. Newcastle and Arsenal are the two away grounds I like going to, as they're a few minutes walk from loads of pubs and restaurants. Both though, are absolutely full of punters still buying food and drink when you get in there. If it's set up properly, then people enjoy being in the ground, and aren't all trying and mostly failing to buy a pint in the same ten minutes before the game, and during half time. And then after the game, give them a reason to hang around for another 30-60 minutes, spending their money.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 17, 2024, 05:58:03 PM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
But those heaving bars are a problem for the club as that's potentially lost revenue.
I don't see a city centre move appealing to the club for that reason, too many other places to spend your money before and after the game.
Yes, that’s a concern. We’re far enough away to have a captive audience where we are.
I'm not sure it would work like that. Newcastle and Arsenal are the two away grounds I like going to, as they're a few minutes walk from loads of pubs and restaurants. Both though, are absolutely full of punters still buying food and drink when you get in there. If it's set up properly, then people enjoy being in the ground, and aren't all trying and mostly failing to buy a pint in the same ten minutes before the game, and during half time. And then after the game, give them a reason to hang around for another 30-60 minutes, spending their money.
Yep, and all those people who currently can't get away from Villa Park quick enough on the final whistle (predominantly because they don't fancy spending over an hour getting back to the motorway despite it being, what, a mile and a bit away) wouldn't need to do so, and would be more likely to stay back if there were decent facilities.
I honestly don't think we have much of a choice on all this, FFP being what it is.
Post by: Villan82 on March 17, 2024, 06:04:46 PM
I am probably a 5 now which leaves me wondering if there is some dark arts and subliminal messaging going on from certain quarters in the club!
Post by: Sdwbvf on March 17, 2024, 07:32:05 PM
We could do a spurs and go to Wembley. Transport infrastructure is fabulous...
HS2 may be built by then...ha. How far is Old Oak Common to Wembley?
Not far but would probably take longer han the journey from Brum
Post by: Goldenballs on March 17, 2024, 08:00:43 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 17, 2024, 08:16:48 PM
I've always thought they could have a Villa ladies game on either before or after some of the Saturday 3pm games.
It would affect the pitch.
Post by: Hillbilly on March 18, 2024, 08:43:06 AM
I’m pretty sure girl cooties are not a thing.I've always thought they could have a Villa ladies game on either before or after some of the Saturday 3pm games.
It would affect the pitch.
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 09:25:26 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 18, 2024, 09:29:32 AM
A quick thought , it might sound far fetched with the money spent but what about a swap around with alexander stadium , we get that area with all the park to build a new ground and im sure villa park could be downsized to accomodate a sparse athletics crowd , thoughts?
Where are you going to be putting a full size running track and all the required area around it at Villa Park?
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 09:32:43 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 18, 2024, 09:33:56 AM
Post by: aj2k77 on March 18, 2024, 09:36:10 AM
Post by: aj2k77 on March 18, 2024, 09:37:12 AM
Take the lower tiers out and the uppers just float in the air?
They could use an industrial size version of the technology that the hover boards from Back To The Future 2 use.
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 09:38:24 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 18, 2024, 09:47:44 AM
I'm with you Algy, the Cardiff stadium is superb, although I don't know if it is up to modern standards in terms of hospitality and concourse space etc. I think we should have built the North Stand, but if we move then City Centre would be great. I think the gas holders site makes most sense (subject to contamination / it already having been targeted for other uses etc)The Principality Stadium is great, my favourite 'modern' stadium. If we were building a new ground, I'd want us to take a lot of cues from that. City centre location, stands that feel like they're almost on top of the pitch, retractable roof so we can turn it in to a giant city centre arena.Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
The Principality Stadium in Cardiff is another example of a city centre stadium. I suppose rugby has the 'benefit' that fans can drink during the game, so they can coin it in while fans are in the stadium.
I think my overall feeling is that I don't particularly want us to leave Villa Park as I think, for all it's faults, it's not a bad site and it has a lot of history attached to it. But if we were to move, I'd want it to be so that we have the stadium that every other club wants. Like Spurs' ground at the moment, but bigger, better, end visually stunning. It should be like the Holte façade, where even though we all know it's a new(ish) pastiche of the old Trinity Road stand, in 20 years time people will look at ot and assume its been that way for a hundred years.
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 09:53:57 AM
Post by: Villan82 on March 18, 2024, 09:56:17 AM
Cant see them moving closer to city as why would heck want us all drinking and eating in town then a 5 minute stroll to the ground and spend nothing once their , they want us to eat and drink etc in their facility !!
Yes but why didn't he go all steam ahead on the redevelopment then? Why set us back if he wants to stay where we are?
Post by: tomd2103 on March 18, 2024, 10:00:20 AM
Moving grounds would have to be for something so advantageous for us to make it worthwhile that you couldn't say no, the Alex is not it. That would be a downgrade.
Think he was talking about building a new stadium on the site of the Alexander Stadium, given the amount of space there is there.
The problem with that site would be the traffic though, as it would be an absolute nightmare whichever way you looked it at. I went to the athletics there during the Commonwealth Games and they had to put on loads of additional buses to get people in and out of there. The stadium was well done once you got there though.
I can't help but think that the Commonwealth Games was a bit of a missed opportunity really, but then I suppose that the bid was successful back in 2017 and the club wasn't in this position then.
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 10:08:59 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 18, 2024, 11:12:14 AM
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 11:21:23 AM
Post by: DB on March 18, 2024, 11:22:49 AM
Post by: Clive W on March 18, 2024, 11:28:20 AM
On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being dead against moving from Villa Park, I have always been a 10.
I am probably a 5 now which leaves me wondering if there is some dark arts and subliminal messaging going on from certain quarters in the club!
I’m an 11
Always will be
Villa Park is Aston Villa
Aston Villa is Villa Park
Post by: Risso on March 18, 2024, 11:34:29 AM
Post by: LeeB on March 18, 2024, 11:47:19 AM
There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?
The traffic around there would be murder on matchday, it's terrible at the best of times. I had the misfortune to be passing at about 2pm on Saturday with them at home and it was choc-a-block with their piss poor gates.
Post by: Gareth on March 18, 2024, 11:56:35 AM
The club may be waiting on what happens with FFP before making any solid plans / decision on the stadium.
And there is the big issue…a one line remark that the redevelopment is not happening is pretty much the only comm…the radio silence shows the contempt that the fans are held in. All it would have taken was a professionally worded and delivered statement to say they are delaying whilst they review all options
Post by: Sdwbvf on March 18, 2024, 12:01:07 PM
Post by: Risso on March 18, 2024, 12:02:24 PM
There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?
The traffic around there would be murder on matchday, it's terrible at the best of times. I had the misfortune to be passing at about 2pm on Saturday with them at home and it was choc-a-block with their piss poor gates.
But round there surely the need to drive would be greatly reduced? Obviously depending where, but you're a 10-15 minute walk from Moor Street and therefore not much further to New Street. I'd love to be able to get the train if it was easier to get to the ground once you were in Brum.
Post by: LeeB on March 18, 2024, 12:02:52 PM
How about the land between Duddeston Mill Road and Nechells Parkway. Near a station. Easy to run buses into town as well. Decent run out to the M6
People might say 'too near the rags' but it's historically in the manor of Aston.
Post by: langleylions on March 18, 2024, 12:03:40 PM
There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?Why would we want to put our stadium slap bang in nose terrortory !!
Post by: LeeB on March 18, 2024, 12:05:38 PM
There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?Why would we want to put our stadium slap bang in nose shithole
House!
Post by: Risso on March 18, 2024, 12:15:01 PM
There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?Why would we want to put our stadium slap bang in nose terrortory !!
Anything inside the ring road is city centre as far as I'm concerned, and we're Aston Villa, we build where we want.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 18, 2024, 12:17:54 PM
I just imagine us in a new stadium in 10 years time and if things haven't worked out and world domination hasn't resulted and we look back and think maybe we should have stuck with the plan.
Yes, that would be my fear as well. There's no guarantee that moving would vastly improve things on the pitch, and we might have given up an integral part of our identity and history in an ill-fated attempt to join the "elite". Yanited fans are discussing something similar atm i.e. whether to move from Old Trafford or not, and one of the first responses summed it for me.
Quote from: Yanited fan
Arsenal's stadium was considered among the best stadium's in the world less than 20 years ago now it's a shithole*. You can't build character, let the new stadium nonces go and try the cheeseboard at Tottenham's stadium
*Not a shithole, but I wasn't overly impressed with it, and it has already been superseded by the Spurs ground.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 18, 2024, 12:18:06 PM
Something in or close to the city centre would be brilliant for the club and the city as a whole. You only have to go to Newcastle to see the heaving bars and restaurants before and after their home games to see how beneficial it would be.
Sorry, I couldn't care less if it benefits the city as a whole, and have ZERO interest in moving from Villa Park.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 18, 2024, 12:25:45 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 18, 2024, 12:27:24 PM
I've always felt the same. But there will be plenty of Arsenal fans who wanted to stay at Highbury, Man City fans who wanted to stay at Maine Road and even West Ham fans who probably accept that as shite as London Stadium is, it has helped propel them upwards massively in terms on income and likely future success.On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being dead against moving from Villa Park, I have always been a 10.
I am probably a 5 now which leaves me wondering if there is some dark arts and subliminal messaging going on from certain quarters in the club!
I’m an 11
Always will be
Villa Park is Aston Villa
Aston Villa is Villa Park
Post by: Somniloquism on March 18, 2024, 12:27:53 PM
I just imagine us in a new stadium in 10 years time and if things haven't worked out and world domination hasn't resulted and we look back and think maybe we should have stuck with the plan.
Yes, that would be my fear as well. There's no guarantee that moving would vastly improve things on the pitch, and we might have given up an integral part of our identity and history in an ill-fated attempt to join the "elite". Yanited fans are discussing something similar atm i.e. whether to move from Old Trafford or not, and one of the first responses summed it for me.Quote from: Yanited fanArsenal's stadium was considered among the best stadium's in the world less than 20 years ago now it's a shithole*. You can't build character, let the new stadium nonces go and try the cheeseboard at Tottenham's stadium
*Not a shithole, but I wasn't overly impressed with it, and it has already been superseded by the Spurs ground.
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Post by: luke95 on March 18, 2024, 12:29:09 PM
On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being dead against moving from Villa Park, I have always been a 10.
I am probably a 5 now which leaves me wondering if there is some dark arts and subliminal messaging going on from certain quarters in the club!
I’m an 11
Always will be
Villa Park is Aston Villa
Aston Villa is Villa Park
This for me too.
I'd accept a couple of seasons away at a revamped Alex while New Villa Park be built. But if we moved out completely I think I'd stop going & I don't think I'd be the only one.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 18, 2024, 12:31:30 PM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
Post by: Lastfootstamper on March 18, 2024, 12:36:23 PM
Post by: algy on March 18, 2024, 12:37:46 PM
How about the land between Duddeston Mill Road and Nechells Parkway. Near a station. Easy to run buses into town as well. Decent run out to the M6It'd be an interesting choice. Presumably Duddeston station could be pushed back up to 4 platforms too, so it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility to have a shuttle service to New St that wouldn't interfere too much with the regular service. And you could imagine a walking route to the HS2 terminus too (and consequently both the trams & the rest of the city centre).
I could see it working as a plot.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 18, 2024, 12:40:56 PM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.
Post by: LeeB on March 18, 2024, 12:43:00 PM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.
There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 18, 2024, 12:46:25 PM
Uber or Black Cab takes 10 to 15 minutes from Colmore Row.There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?
The traffic around there would be murder on matchday, it's terrible at the best of times. I had the misfortune to be passing at about 2pm on Saturday with them at home and it was choc-a-block with their piss poor gates.
But round there surely the need to drive would be greatly reduced? Obviously depending where, but you're a 10-15 minute walk from Moor Street and therefore not much further to New Street. I'd love to be able to get the train if it was easier to get to the ground once you were in Brum.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 18, 2024, 12:48:36 PM
And on the way back?Uber or Black Cab takes 10 to 15 minutes from Colmore Row.There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?
The traffic around there would be murder on matchday, it's terrible at the best of times. I had the misfortune to be passing at about 2pm on Saturday with them at home and it was choc-a-block with their piss poor gates.
But round there surely the need to drive would be greatly reduced? Obviously depending where, but you're a 10-15 minute walk from Moor Street and therefore not much further to New Street. I'd love to be able to get the train if it was easier to get to the ground once you were in Brum.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 18, 2024, 12:51:31 PM
Depends whhat time you leave the ground.And on the way back?Uber or Black Cab takes 10 to 15 minutes from Colmore Row.There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?
The traffic around there would be murder on matchday, it's terrible at the best of times. I had the misfortune to be passing at about 2pm on Saturday with them at home and it was choc-a-block with their piss poor gates.
But round there surely the need to drive would be greatly reduced? Obviously depending where, but you're a 10-15 minute walk from Moor Street and therefore not much further to New Street. I'd love to be able to get the train if it was easier to get to the ground once you were in Brum.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 18, 2024, 12:56:00 PM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.
There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.
I covered that in do a Spurs bit where they would need to knock down Old Trafford and move the whole stand to encompass the car park. If they can buy out the railway freight yard (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4628044,-2.2961211,593m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu) as well then they could build without ground sharing for two years.
Post by: Villan82 on March 18, 2024, 12:58:23 PM
On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being dead against moving from Villa Park, I have always been a 10.
I am probably a 5 now which leaves me wondering if there is some dark arts and subliminal messaging going on from certain quarters in the club!
I’m an 11
Always will be
Villa Park is Aston Villa
Aston Villa is Villa Park
This for me too.
I'd accept a couple of seasons away at a revamped Alex while New Villa Park be built. But if we moved out completely I think I'd stop going & I don't think I'd be the only one.
I am a bit surprised at myself to be honest. I have been dead against but the past few days the tide seems to be turning.
I just wish Heck hadn't made that announcement and we were knocking down the North stand in June as planned. This debate wouldn't be happening then
And one more edit, I still believe it is a major failure of imagination if we cannot make our current location work given the acreage, the location, the history and what we have to work with on two sides of the ground,
Post by: Clive W on March 18, 2024, 01:12:17 PM
On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being dead against moving from Villa Park, I have always been a 10.
I am probably a 5 now which leaves me wondering if there is some dark arts and subliminal messaging going on from certain quarters in the club!
I’m an 11
Always will be
Villa Park is Aston Villa
Aston Villa is Villa Park
This for me too.
I'd accept a couple of seasons away at a revamped Alex while New Villa Park be built. But if we moved out completely I think I'd stop going & I don't think I'd be the only one.
I feel exactly the same but I think it’s probably an age thing
My first visit to VP was 27 December 1965 against West Ham - a Christmas present from my parents
We lived in Kent and had a horrendous drive up through the snow and ice (don’t think the M6 existed in those days)
We had a Hillman Minx and even though it was the “de-Lux” version it didn’t have a radio - but it did have a bench front seat and a gear stick on the steering wheel
All the way up I had my ear glued to my transistor radio trying to hear whether the match was still on
It was - but was abandoned after 30 minutes because of the frozen pitch
Memories like that make it very hard for me to imagine watching Villa in some shiny new stadium
Post by: Risso on March 18, 2024, 01:21:07 PM
I feel exactly the same but I think it’s probably an age thing
My first visit to VP was 27 December 1965 against West Ham - a Christmas present from my parents
We lived in Kent and had a horrendous drive up through the snow and ice (don’t think the M6 existed in those days)
We had a Hillman Minx and even though it was the “de-Lux” version it didn’t have a radio - but it did have a bench front seat and a gear stick on the steering wheel
All the way up I had my ear glued to my transistor radio trying to hear whether the match was still on
It was - but was abandoned after 30 minutes because of the frozen pitch
Memories like that make it very hard for me to imagine watching Villa in some shiny new stadium
But obviously there's a barely a single brick of the ground from that day still in place. Since then there have been four completely new stands, and now two of those desperately need replacing. We've got a 70s concrete eyesore (/ brutalist masterpiece, whatever), a 90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse, a modern replacement for the Leitch masterpiece, and the Holte End with a modern frontage that everybody seems to think is old, but isn't.
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 18, 2024, 01:31:49 PM
I'm still convinced that the delay in the North Stand is just Heck attempting to squeeze the pips out of every seat we have now - ticket prices will go up massively whilst we can't meet demand, and then these become accepted as normal before we rebuild.
Post by: Bad English on March 18, 2024, 01:42:16 PM
On 70 minutes is about right if you want to 'beat the traffic™'Depends whhat time you leave the ground.And on the way back?Uber or Black Cab takes 10 to 15 minutes from Colmore Row.There must be 15 acres we could get in the whole area of Digbeth/Deritend/south of Highgate Park? Everywhere round there seems to be full of ratty warehouses, a lot of which seem empty. It's surely easier dealing with a few businesses than trying to use CPOs for housing around Villa Park?
The traffic around there would be murder on matchday, it's terrible at the best of times. I had the misfortune to be passing at about 2pm on Saturday with them at home and it was choc-a-block with their piss poor gates.
But round there surely the need to drive would be greatly reduced? Obviously depending where, but you're a 10-15 minute walk from Moor Street and therefore not much further to New Street. I'd love to be able to get the train if it was easier to get to the ground once you were in Brum.
Post by: Risso on March 18, 2024, 01:44:22 PM
I still really can't see us moving from Villa Park - it will be far easier for us to get hold of the land needed for a full rebuild of the North Stand and Witton Lane than it will be to find space for a brand new 60k+ seater nearer town. If anything, over the next 10 years the city centre is going to expand to get nearer to Aston anyway - there are loads of developments in the Gun Quarter, and Curzon Wharf (opposite Matalan) has got planning permission for the tallest building in the city. There is nowhere nearer to town where there is enough space that isn't already being developed for something.
I'm still convinced that the delay in the North Stand is just Heck attempting to squeeze the pips out of every seat we have now - ticket prices will go up massively whilst we can't meet demand, and then these become accepted as normal before we rebuild.
I don't know. That Comcast lot would only usually get involved if they can see a return on their money, and a new North Stand isn't going to do that for them. It would help US with our turnover and FFP calculations, but that just means spending the extra income on players and their wages. They're going to want a big shiny new development that's pulling in money all year round from a variety of sources, not just every other weekend from August to May.
Post by: luke95 on March 18, 2024, 01:45:47 PM
I feel exactly the same but I think it’s probably an age thing
My first visit to VP was 27 December 1965 against West Ham - a Christmas present from my parents
We lived in Kent and had a horrendous drive up through the snow and ice (don’t think the M6 existed in those days)
We had a Hillman Minx and even though it was the “de-Lux” version it didn’t have a radio - but it did have a bench front seat and a gear stick on the steering wheel
All the way up I had my ear glued to my transistor radio trying to hear whether the match was still on
It was - but was abandoned after 30 minutes because of the frozen pitch
Memories like that make it very hard for me to imagine watching Villa in some shiny new stadium
But obviously there's a barely a single brick of the ground from that day still in place. Since then there have been four completely new stands, and now two of those desperately need replacing. We've got a 70s concrete eyesore (/ brutalist masterpiece, whatever), a 90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse, a modern replacement for the Leitch masterpiece, and the Holte End with a modern frontage that everybody seems to think is old, but isn't.
But it's still Villa Park
We've had thousands of different players & managers represent us over the years but it's still Aston Villa FC.
They both go hand in hand you can't have one without the other.
Post by: Drummond on March 18, 2024, 01:52:41 PM
I still really can't see us moving from Villa Park - it will be far easier for us to get hold of the land needed for a full rebuild of the North Stand and Witton Lane than it will be to find space for a brand new 60k+ seater nearer town. If anything, over the next 10 years the city centre is going to expand to get nearer to Aston anyway - there are loads of developments in the Gun Quarter, and Curzon Wharf (opposite Matalan) has got planning permission for the tallest building in the city. There is nowhere nearer to town where there is enough space that isn't already being developed for something.
I'm still convinced that the delay in the North Stand is just Heck attempting to squeeze the pips out of every seat we have now - ticket prices will go up massively whilst we can't meet demand, and then these become accepted as normal before we rebuild.
I don't know. That Comcast lot would only usually get involved if they can see a return on their money, and a new North Stand isn't going to do that for them. It would help US with our turnover and FFP calculations, but that just means spending the extra income on players and their wages. They're going to want a big shiny new development that's pulling in money all year round from a variety of sources, not just every other weekend from August to May.
Maybe they have ideas about the new North, Villa Live, the Holte End car park, the coach park for away coaches etc that far outstrips what was proposed before.
The vacuum created by Heck's decision, without an explanation, is what's causing all this debate of course, but I can't see us moving.
Post by: Clampy on March 18, 2024, 01:56:17 PM
I feel exactly the same but I think it’s probably an age thing
My first visit to VP was 27 December 1965 against West Ham - a Christmas present from my parents
We lived in Kent and had a horrendous drive up through the snow and ice (don’t think the M6 existed in those days)
We had a Hillman Minx and even though it was the “de-Lux” version it didn’t have a radio - but it did have a bench front seat and a gear stick on the steering wheel
All the way up I had my ear glued to my transistor radio trying to hear whether the match was still on
It was - but was abandoned after 30 minutes because of the frozen pitch
Memories like that make it very hard for me to imagine watching Villa in some shiny new stadium
But obviously there's a barely a single brick of the ground from that day still in place. Since then there have been four completely new stands, and now two of those desperately need replacing. We've got a 70s concrete eyesore (/ brutalist masterpiece, whatever), a 90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse, a modern replacement for the Leitch masterpiece, and the Holte End with a modern frontage that everybody seems to think is old, but isn't.
Blimey, it's not that bad.
Post by: Clive W on March 18, 2024, 02:07:43 PM
I feel exactly the same but I think it’s probably an age thing
My first visit to VP was 27 December 1965 against West Ham - a Christmas present from my parents
We lived in Kent and had a horrendous drive up through the snow and ice (don’t think the M6 existed in those days)
We had a Hillman Minx and even though it was the “de-Lux” version it didn’t have a radio - but it did have a bench front seat and a gear stick on the steering wheel
All the way up I had my ear glued to my transistor radio trying to hear whether the match was still on
It was - but was abandoned after 30 minutes because of the frozen pitch
Memories like that make it very hard for me to imagine watching Villa in some shiny new stadium
But obviously there's a barely a single brick of the ground from that day still in place. Since then there have been four completely new stands, and now two of those desperately need replacing. We've got a 70s concrete eyesore (/ brutalist masterpiece, whatever), a 90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse, a modern replacement for the Leitch masterpiece, and the Holte End with a modern frontage that everybody seems to think is old, but isn't.
But it's still Villa Park
We've had thousands of different players & managers represent us over the years but it's still Aston Villa FC.
They both go hand in hand you can't have one without the other.
My thoughts too Luke
Perhaps others can phrase it better than me (I think this was Peter Morris)
“The door to the lavishly appointed Guest Room at Villa Park was open and out in the corridor the little boys, dodging the commissionaire, were calling for Brian Little and John Gidman. Quite rightly, they took no notice of myself and the elderly bald-headed man, bespectacled, stooping a little, who was quietly finishing his tea. He looked over at them for a moment, a whimsical look, and moved to the long window overlooking the now deserted playing pitch.
"Every time you come here it must bring back memories Pongo," I said. He stared out for a long while. I thought he'd forgotten I was there. "Aye", he said suddenly "aye, they're a great club...the greatest." I stood and looked with him, this old man whose goals had set the Villa crowds roaring so long ago. It was not quite dusk on that March afternoon and I saw them too...they were out again, the old ghosts...Jack Hughes, scorer just about one hundred years earlier of Aston Villa's first goal (perhaps to the very day)...George Ramsay...the Hunter brothers...Willie McGregor...Denny Hodgetts...legion upon legion of them on parade now, filling the field with claret and blue...the century with pride.”
Post by: DB on March 18, 2024, 02:08:20 PM
Post by: Gareth on March 18, 2024, 02:15:40 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 18, 2024, 02:17:31 PM
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
Post by: LeeB on March 18, 2024, 02:21:43 PM
Post by: Clive W on March 18, 2024, 02:22:47 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
In my case - “sentiment”?
Yes
“Manufactured”?
Certainly not
Post by: DB on March 18, 2024, 02:26:51 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 18, 2024, 02:32:16 PM
Forest's case of extracting the best value out of the Johnson deal might have some merit were it not for the fact they've signed 40 odd players over the three transfer windows since they came up.
Absolutley, it's no defence whatsoever with regards to breaking the rules. It works from a financial perspective in trying to get the most money they can, and indeed you could understand why they'd do it.
£15m and a 4 point deduction, got to be worth it.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 18, 2024, 02:37:42 PM
No more Jack Walkers, buying Blackburn the league. No more Leicesters winning the league then sacking their manager ungraciously a few months later.
Basically the league table, in stone, for the forseeable future.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 18, 2024, 02:44:08 PM
I feel exactly the same but I think it’s probably an age thing
My first visit to VP was 27 December 1965 against West Ham - a Christmas present from my parents
We lived in Kent and had a horrendous drive up through the snow and ice (don’t think the M6 existed in those days)
We had a Hillman Minx and even though it was the “de-Lux” version it didn’t have a radio - but it did have a bench front seat and a gear stick on the steering wheel
All the way up I had my ear glued to my transistor radio trying to hear whether the match was still on
It was - but was abandoned after 30 minutes because of the frozen pitch
Memories like that make it very hard for me to imagine watching Villa in some shiny new stadium
But obviously there's a barely a single brick of the ground from that day still in place. Since then there have been four completely new stands, and now two of those desperately need replacing. We've got a 70s concrete eyesore (/ brutalist masterpiece, whatever), a 90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse, a modern replacement for the Leitch masterpiece, and the Holte End with a modern frontage that everybody seems to think is old, but isn't.
But it's still Villa Park
We've had thousands of different players & managers represent us over the years but it's still Aston Villa FC.
They both go hand in hand you can't have one without the other.
My thoughts too Luke
Perhaps others can phrase it better than me (I think this was Peter Morris)
“The door to the lavishly appointed Guest Room at Villa Park was open and out in the corridor the little boys, dodging the commissionaire, were calling for Brian Little and John Gidman. Quite rightly, they took no notice of myself and the elderly bald-headed man, bespectacled, stooping a little, who was quietly finishing his tea. He looked over at them for a moment, a whimsical look, and moved to the long window overlooking the now deserted playing pitch.
"Every time you come here it must bring back memories Pongo," I said. He stared out for a long while. I thought he'd forgotten I was there. "Aye", he said suddenly "aye, they're a great club...the greatest." I stood and looked with him, this old man whose goals had set the Villa crowds roaring so long ago. It was not quite dusk on that March afternoon and I saw them too...they were out again, the old ghosts...Jack Hughes, scorer just about one hundred years earlier of Aston Villa's first goal (perhaps to the very day)...George Ramsay...the Hunter brothers...Willie McGregor...Denny Hodgetts...legion upon legion of them on parade now, filling the field with claret and blue...the century with pride.”
You’re accidentally making the case for moving there, by quoting someone talking about things which happened long before we moved to Villa Park as being ‘seen’ there on the pitch where they didn’t happen.
Post by: luke95 on March 18, 2024, 02:46:48 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
It's not just about the bricks & mortar, it's deeper than that
Post by: Simon Page on March 18, 2024, 03:00:40 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 18, 2024, 03:04:19 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 18, 2024, 03:05:29 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
This and the post from Risso sum it up for me. We all love Villa park but as it stands it's a shackle to the past that risks damaging our future.
I see 3 options:
Knock down the North and DE, make the best of it and eek our way to 55k-ish stadium which would just about hang onto the coattails of teams around us.
Rebuild on the same site, taking a couple of seasons away from Villa Park and maybe getting a little over 60k but still ahving a lot of the problems we have now.
Build new elsewhere, only move when it's complete and find a site with better opportunities on non-match days, with room for more pre and post match facilities and with better transport links.
Post by: Aldridge Villa on March 18, 2024, 03:44:48 PM
Post by: Clark W Griswold on March 18, 2024, 03:54:33 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
This and the post from Risso sum it up for me. We all love Villa park but as it stands it's a shackle to the past that risks damaging our future.
I see 3 options:
Knock down the North and DE, make the best of it and eek our way to 55k-ish stadium which would just about hang onto the coattails of teams around us.
Rebuild on the same site, taking a couple of seasons away from Villa Park and maybe getting a little over 60k but still ahving a lot of the problems we have now.
Build new elsewhere, only move when it's complete and find a site with better opportunities on non-match days, with room for more pre and post match facilities and with better transport links.
It's definitely more '70s concrete eyesore' than 'brutalist masterpiece', and i don't like sitting in it at all, although i do like sitting in the '90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse' upper, just don't try to get a drink or go for a piss at half time. On the whole the other parts are ok, but i do get proper fucked off with the performance trying to get to and from the ground.
I'd really like us to stay there and make it 10k or so bigger and improve the transport side of it but if it's not possible then maybe move. I'd like us to build something unique though rather than have the same old shitty soul less bowl that many have these days.
Post by: paul_e on March 18, 2024, 04:00:16 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
This and the post from Risso sum it up for me. We all love Villa park but as it stands it's a shackle to the past that risks damaging our future.
I see 3 options:
Knock down the North and DE, make the best of it and eek our way to 55k-ish stadium which would just about hang onto the coattails of teams around us.
Rebuild on the same site, taking a couple of seasons away from Villa Park and maybe getting a little over 60k but still ahving a lot of the problems we have now.
Build new elsewhere, only move when it's complete and find a site with better opportunities on non-match days, with room for more pre and post match facilities and with better transport links.
It's definitely more '70s concrete eyesore' than 'brutalist masterpiece', and i don't like sitting in it at all, although i do like sitting in the '90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse' upper, just don't try to get a drink or go for a piss at half time. On the whole the other parts are ok, but i do get proper fucked off with the performance trying to get to and from the ground.
I'd really like us to stay there and make it 10k or so bigger and improve the transport side of it but if it's not possible then maybe move. I'd like us to build something unique though rather than have the same old shitty soul less bowl that many have these days.
Absolutely agree on this bit, it's why I've posted a few AI-generated ideas in the past that some people find so upsetting.
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 18, 2024, 04:01:20 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
This and the post from Risso sum it up for me. We all love Villa park but as it stands it's a shackle to the past that risks damaging our future.
I see 3 options:
Knock down the North and DE, make the best of it and eek our way to 55k-ish stadium which would just about hang onto the coattails of teams around us.
Rebuild on the same site, taking a couple of seasons away from Villa Park and maybe getting a little over 60k but still ahving a lot of the problems we have now.
Build new elsewhere, only move when it's complete and find a site with better opportunities on non-match days, with room for more pre and post match facilities and with better transport links.
If we take those as the 3 options then surely we need to factor in the costs of doing each of them:
1 - Disruption for 3-4 seasons, but could eventually get to around 60k using Anfield type approach. Would cost IRO £300-500 million.
2 - No home ground for 2 years, build Tottenham-esque stadium on current site - at least £1 billion+
3 - Find and purchase land close to transport links then build stadium as above - looking at close to £2 billion, and at least 10 years before it's ready.
If this is why Comcast have got involved then options 2 or 3 might be possible, but I struggle to see how the ROI on either is going to be that much better than option one that it would justify the mega outlay. Also, the longer we wait to do anything the more expensive the whole thing is likely to get.
If we were going to build elsewhere in the city, the time to plan it was probably 10 years ago, and if we had our current owners at that stage it probably would have made sense. I just can't see how or where we will find somewhere now that is available and will improve on the location we already have - surely between the club and the council there are people who can see the benefit of using Villa Park as a catalyst to improve the surrounding area.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 18, 2024, 04:21:51 PM
All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.
If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.
I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.
But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.
If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.
It's not just about the bricks & mortar, it's deeper than that
Exactly, and as Taylor Swift put it, "i like shiny things but i'd marry you with paper rings".
*Not you Luke, obviously.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 18, 2024, 05:13:13 PM
When do Everton hear their 2nd potential charge ?
Well they have heard the charge, but if you meant the result it will be a couple of weeks time as their appeal for the other one had to be completed where Forest did not.
Post by: eamonn on March 18, 2024, 05:17:02 PM
Post by: pelty on March 18, 2024, 06:10:26 PM
Its not fair play anyway is it. How is it fair that a newly promoted club would have around 10% the spending power of one of the wanker 6 clubs, forever, unless somehow you can gain sponsorship deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds above your market value.
No more Jack Walkers, buying Blackburn the league. No more Leicesters winning the league then sacking their manager ungraciously a few months later.
Basically the league table, in stone, for the forseeable future.
This is spot on. Thank you for saying it.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 18, 2024, 08:01:15 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 18, 2024, 08:01:20 PM
I urge anyone to google Stamford Bridge 1992 or look at Manchester City's average league placings in the 90's and early 2000's before oil, and then argue that their place as the game's elite should be crystallised forever.
******.
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 18, 2024, 08:10:24 PM
Post by: Bad English on March 18, 2024, 08:52:35 PM
Absolutely agree on this bit, it's why I've posted a few AI-generated ideas in the past that some people find so upsetting.I think people mainly roll their eyes to be fair.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 18, 2024, 08:54:08 PM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.
There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.
I covered that in do a Spurs bit where they would need to knock down Old Trafford and move the whole stand to encompass the car park. If they can buy out the railway freight yard (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4628044,-2.2961211,593m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu) as well then they could build without ground sharing for two years.
As I understand it, most of the land around there is owned by Peel, a massive developer. They would probably bend over backwards to accommodate Man U because a new stadium could be the catalyst to regenerate the whole area.
We need that bit of luck where BCC/the government are trying to shift a parcel of land big enough for a stadium as I think the other pieces (Atairos, fanbase etc) are already in place.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 18, 2024, 09:53:13 PM
Did Taylor really say that? It's a good line.
She’s got quite a few.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 18, 2024, 09:55:01 PM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.
There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.
I covered that in do a Spurs bit where they would need to knock down Old Trafford and move the whole stand to encompass the car park. If they can buy out the railway freight yard (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4628044,-2.2961211,593m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu) as well then they could build without ground sharing for two years.
As I understand it, most of the land around there is owned by Peel, a massive developer. They would probably bend over backwards to accommodate Man U because a new stadium could be the catalyst to regenerate the whole area.
We need that bit of luck where BCC/the government are trying to shift a parcel of land big enough for a stadium as I think the other pieces (Atairos, fanbase etc) are already in place.
Birmingham Wheels fits that bill.
Post by: KevinGage on March 18, 2024, 10:10:45 PM
There’s a good point in the articulation of Forest’s deduction, it’s not so much punishment for Forest as it is fairness on other clubs. I think that’s the point really, they fully deserved what they got. Yes they might argue it was more financially prudent to wait and get more money for Johnson - but it was their poor management up to that point that had got them in the position that they should have accepted less and met the required deadline.
I didn't agree with Everton's points deduction and don't agree with Forest's.
Divide and rule.
It's convenient for the PL to pick off and effectively blame smaller fry for being ambitious (initially, as Everyon were under Koeman and then Ancelotti). Or merely just wanting to survive, as Forest did last year.
Whilst ignoring the petrodollar sugarbags at the top gaming the system.
Post by: adrenachrome on March 19, 2024, 02:10:34 AM
Well technically it’s profit and sustainability as opposed to FFP.
Yes, and the part of this that pertains to Forest was to stop promoted clubs overstretching, getting relegated and then becoming bankrupt. In this case, the timing of the Brennan Johnson sale has complicated matters.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 19, 2024, 04:08:44 AM
https://www.90min.com/posts/uefa-prize-money-how-much-champions-league-europa-league-conference-league-winners-earn
Post by: Dogtanian on March 19, 2024, 08:12:40 AM
Back to our case, I make it we’re due over £5m in prize money alone from our UECL run so far:
https://www.90min.com/posts/uefa-prize-money-how-much-champions-league-europa-league-conference-league-winners-earn
I've found this site quite helpful;
https://www.football-coefficient.eu/team/958-aston-villa/ (https://www.football-coefficient.eu/team/958-aston-villa/)
Works it out to about £7.6m.
The attendances and prices for the home games probably add another £7m on if we sell out the QF.
I'm assuming there's no sharing of gate receipts between both teams in these games as there's a home and away leg.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 19, 2024, 08:31:06 AM
Back to our case, I make it we’re due over £5m in prize money alone from our UECL run so far:
https://www.90min.com/posts/uefa-prize-money-how-much-champions-league-europa-league-conference-league-winners-earn
I've found this site quite helpful;
https://www.football-coefficient.eu/team/958-aston-villa/ (https://www.football-coefficient.eu/team/958-aston-villa/)
Works it out to about £7.6m.
The attendances and prices for the home games probably add another £7m on if we sell out the QF.
I'm assuming there's no sharing of gate receipts between both teams in these games as there's a home and away leg.
Good stuff, cheers Dog.
Post by: LeeS on March 19, 2024, 08:33:24 AM
Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......
Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.
The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.
There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.
I covered that in do a Spurs bit where they would need to knock down Old Trafford and move the whole stand to encompass the car park. If they can buy out the railway freight yard (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4628044,-2.2961211,593m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu) as well then they could build without ground sharing for two years.
As I understand it, most of the land around there is owned by Peel, a massive developer. They would probably bend over backwards to accommodate Man U because a new stadium could be the catalyst to regenerate the whole area.
We need that bit of luck where BCC/the government are trying to shift a parcel of land big enough for a stadium as I think the other pieces (Atairos, fanbase etc) are already in place.
There is a spot next door to the IWM of the North that is ideal. I don't know who approves CPAs but if its Burnham then no-one will stop United building on those warehouses. A whacking great stadium is one of the most prestigious builds in any city. Birmingham and Manchester should be falling over themselves to make these things happen.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 19, 2024, 09:39:25 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 19, 2024, 10:19:14 AM
There’s a good point in the articulation of Forest’s deduction, it’s not so much punishment for Forest as it is fairness on other clubs. I think that’s the point really, they fully deserved what they got. Yes they might argue it was more financially prudent to wait and get more money for Johnson - but it was their poor management up to that point that had got them in the position that they should have accepted less and met the required deadline.
I didn't agree with Everton's points deduction and don't agree with Forest's.
Divide and rule.
It's convenient for the PL to pick off and effectively blame smaller fry for being ambitious (initially, as Everyon were under Koeman and then Ancelotti). Or merely just wanting to survive, as Forest did last year.
Whilst ignoring the petrodollar sugarbags at the top gaming the system.
That's the key point for me. That's two clubs now who have been punished, yet they still can't even state a date for when the hearing is going to be held for Manchester City. The longer that goes on , the more credibility the league loses, especially if they end up winning the league again.
My bet would be that they are allowed to finish this season without any punishment and then the rules are changed in the summer, which will then significantly lessen the impact of any punishment on them.
Post by: Simon Page on March 19, 2024, 10:26:07 AM
Quote
West Ham owner David Sullivan told Sky Sports: "The Premier League is the best league in the world so why change a winning formula?
"I hope the government don't wreck something that works. If over the coming seasons the Premier League ceases to be the best league in the world, it will be down to an interfering government."
He added: "Between the 20 clubs there is almost £2bn of debt, so there isn't really 'available cash' to give away."
Everything's great, although we're all bang on the edge of financial disaster.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 19, 2024, 10:27:04 AM
The PL backers do not need Citeh, they are almost an irrelevance commercially in comparison to the big 2 ( in global fan base terms).
Post by: Drummond on March 19, 2024, 11:03:39 AM
The book has to be thrown at them, in the strongest possible terms, otherwise it's all pointless and there will be litigation galore from lots of other clubs which could finish the Premier League.
My only concern is that the government try to get involved to smooth the process because Abu Dhabi threaten to withdraw funding etc. You can see from the government intervening to help the Saudis take over Newcastle for precedence.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 19, 2024, 11:08:12 AM
The PL backers do not need Citeh, they are almost an irrelevance commercially in comparison to the big 2 ( in global fan base terms).
They are at the moment but LFC and ManYoo only have a global fanbase because they have been as successful in the past as City are now. I'd guess your average kid on the streets of Karachi just about to start supporting a team and spending money on 'merch' is more than likely to pick the new kids on the block over either of them.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 19, 2024, 11:09:28 AM
https://vipfootballhospitality.com/tickets/aston-villa/
170 quid a head for LG v Wolves.
That's a hefty mark-up, I thought it was a 70 quid add-on to seat cost?
Post by: chrisw1 on March 19, 2024, 11:10:45 AM
Everton was one charge, Forest was one charge and they engaged and cooperated throughout. Man City have 115 charges, aren't complying at all, are delaying at every opportunity and thus it's taking a lot longer.If they are really going at them hard then surely there should be interim sanctions. If you don't supply this information by this date then you will be suspended from this competition etc. Rather than crowning them again with yet more trophies that they have cheated their way to, with the media continuing to fawn over their greatness.
The book has to be thrown at them, in the strongest possible terms, otherwise it's all pointless and there will be litigation galore from lots of other clubs which could finish the Premier League.
My only concern is that the government try to get involved to smooth the process because Abu Dhabi threaten to withdraw funding etc. You can see from the government intervening to help the Saudis take over Newcastle for precedence.
It doesn't feel to me at all like the book has been thrown at them. If it has, it was a gentle underarm lob.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 19, 2024, 11:12:40 AM
https://vipfootballhospitality.com/tickets/aston-villa/
170 quid a head for LG v Wolves.
That's a hefty mark-up, I thought it was a 70 quid add-on to seat cost?
£499 for LG v Liverpool on that site.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 19, 2024, 11:14:09 AM
Everton was one charge, Forest was one charge and they engaged and cooperated throughout. Man City have 115 charges, aren't complying at all, are delaying at every opportunity and thus it's taking a lot longer.If they are really going at them hard then surely there should be interim sanctions. If you don't supply this information by this date then you will be suspended from this competition etc. Rather than crowning them again with yet more trophies that they have cheated their way to, with the media continuing to fawn over their greatness.
The book has to be thrown at them, in the strongest possible terms, otherwise it's all pointless and there will be litigation galore from lots of other clubs which could finish the Premier League.
My only concern is that the government try to get involved to smooth the process because Abu Dhabi threaten to withdraw funding etc. You can see from the government intervening to help the Saudis take over Newcastle for precedence.
It doesn't feel to me at all like the book has been thrown at them. If it has, it was a gentle underarm lob.
There is zero chance Man City get the book thrown at them.
Firstly, because in doing so, the PL would be admitting that their championship has effectively been cheated for the last 10 (or however many) years, thus dealing the brand a pretty hefty blow, and there is zero doubt they care more about money than they do sporting integrity.
Secondly, because it's owned by an oil rich nation we'd do almost anything to stay on the right side of.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on March 19, 2024, 11:15:56 AM
https://vipfootballhospitality.com/tickets/aston-villa/
Yes this came up on my facebook . Glorified touts !
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 19, 2024, 11:16:52 AM
https://vipfootballhospitality.com/tickets/aston-villa/
Yes this came up on my facebook . Glorified touts !
I also find it pretty hard to believe that pricing for Liverpool doesn't reflect the fact they reckon there'll be tons of Liverpool 'fans' wanting to see the game, no matter the price, what with the impending exit of Saint Jurgen of Dortmund.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 19, 2024, 11:23:06 AM
There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.
Or alternatively, dig a monumentally deep and wide hole, demolish the current ground - ideally with fans still in their seats - and deposit the fucking lot in there, like the pitiful pile of builders' rubble it deserves to be, throw in all their celebrity 'fans' (Eamonn Holmes and James Nesbitt first, please), then concrete it over and build something more culturally positive, like a car park.
Post by: Clark W Griswold on March 19, 2024, 11:26:13 AM
Post by: Drummond on March 19, 2024, 11:39:05 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 19, 2024, 11:54:56 AM
Or a jail.
Not a bad idea when they have Antony and Mason Greenwood on their books.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 19, 2024, 12:05:34 PM
Modern football and capitalism (amiritekids) inadvertently summed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68602074) up by exactly the right person:QuoteWest Ham owner David Sullivan told Sky Sports: "The Premier League is the best league in the world so why change a winning formula?
"I hope the government don't wreck something that works. If over the coming seasons the Premier League ceases to be the best league in the world, it will be down to an interfering government."
He added: "Between the 20 clubs there is almost £2bn of debt, so there isn't really 'available cash' to give away."
Everything's great, although we're all bang on the edge of financial disaster.
£2B of debt. Isn't about £1B of that ManU's?
But the "profit & sustainability rules" are there to stop clubs going into debt...
The name of "Financial Fair Play" was changed because lets face it, it was a trading standards lawsuit waiting to happen, but the clubs are £2B in debt, so I wonder if the name of the "profit & sustainability rules" will be changed too, considering there is still so much debt, even to clubs who can spend 400% more than most other clubs in the league.
"Profit & status-quo-ability"?
"Profit & fuck your club if you are outside of the media & marketing favourite six clubs, albeit with a special mention to Newcastle, because, well, you know, money & West Ham because? Fuck knows... London?".
Everton was one charge, Forest was one charge and they engaged and cooperated throughout. Man City have 115 charges, aren't complying at all, are delaying at every opportunity and thus it's taking a lot longer.If they are really going at them hard then surely there should be interim sanctions. If you don't supply this information by this date then you will be suspended from this competition etc. Rather than crowning them again with yet more trophies that they have cheated their way to, with the media continuing to fawn over their greatness.
The book has to be thrown at them, in the strongest possible terms, otherwise it's all pointless and there will be litigation galore from lots of other clubs which could finish the Premier League.
My only concern is that the government try to get involved to smooth the process because Abu Dhabi threaten to withdraw funding etc. You can see from the government intervening to help the Saudis take over Newcastle for precedence.
It doesn't feel to me at all like the book has been thrown at them. If it has, it was a gentle underarm lob.
I would ban them from being able to make transfers & then deduct them three points for every week that they fuck about refusing to give a document.
Post by: john e on March 19, 2024, 12:48:51 PM
Post by: Clark W Griswold on March 19, 2024, 01:14:25 PM
Post by: Risso on March 19, 2024, 01:17:40 PM
Surely they're not worth that much?
Well Jim Ratcliffe has just bought 28% for £1.4bn, so yes they are.
Post by: Simon Page on March 19, 2024, 01:36:57 PM
The important thing is the Premier League is brilliant but please don't look too closely.
Post by: Clark W Griswold on March 19, 2024, 01:37:48 PM
I don’t tend to keep up with their news but that’s a shocker.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 19, 2024, 01:52:37 PM
Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
That might very well be the case, but they still have more debt than most clubs are worth & PSR is meant to be a way to stop clubs going into debt.
Clubs should be forced to pay off their debt before being given 400% advantage over clubs with no debt.
And if it's not a problem for them, then paying it off should be pretty speedy & smooth.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 19, 2024, 02:07:55 PM
I'd suggest £2bn is a figure that just came out of Porno's gob. The true figure will be much more and it's all fine until there's no-one to buy your debt-ridden business, or the people you owe get itchy. Not that either scenario would ever happen to any club, company, banking sector, national economy...
.
Yep - Man United's debt plus Spurs must have nearly as much from their stadium build, not to mention Everton. It's way more than 2bn
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 19, 2024, 02:42:35 PM
No, it was bought into stop clubs going bust.Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
That might very well be the case, but they still have more debt than most clubs are worth & PSR is meant to be a way to stop clubs going into debt.
Clubs should be forced to pay off their debt before being given 400% advantage over clubs with no debt.
And if it's not a problem for them, then paying it off should be pretty speedy & smooth.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 19, 2024, 03:52:59 PM
A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.
If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?
If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?
Post by: Drummond on March 19, 2024, 04:01:39 PM
Post by: villa_cads on March 19, 2024, 04:08:42 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 19, 2024, 04:09:21 PM
Having huge debts, going bust, its all linked.Lots of successful businesses have debt, the majority of the ManU debt was incurred prior to FFP.
A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.
If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?
If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?
I agree that the way the authorities have bought in FFP is poor but the current scheme is based on profitability which is a P&L measurement not debt which is Balance Sheet item.
The difference is that debt is interest bearing which impacts the P&L whereas investment isn’t but is still a Balance Sheet item.
Because Man U have huge revenue they can service large amounts if debt, the will always have an advantage over most clubs because this, the debt situation is thankfully holding them back.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 19, 2024, 05:03:39 PM
Having huge debts, going bust, its all linked.
A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.
If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?
If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?
Lots of successful businesses have debt, the majority of the ManU debt was incurred prior to FFP.
I agree that the way the authorities have bought in FFP is poor but the current scheme is based on profitability which is a P&L measurement not debt which is Balance Sheet item.
The difference is that debt is interest bearing which impacts the P&L whereas investment isn’t but is still a Balance Sheet item.
Because Man U have huge revenue they can service large amounts if debt, the will always have an advantage over most clubs because this, the debt situation is thankfully holding them back.
But we are talking about football & its ridiculous "profit & sustainability rules". There are plenty of things that happen in big business that isn't allowed in football.
Spending one's own money, being one.
Im not saying that clubs should go all out & splash cash willy nilly. There has to be some form on cap on spending, otherwise we will see more Chelsea & ManC's. But the way we go about it at the moment is wrong.
Im not concerned if ManU's debt was incurred before FFP/PSR.
There are plenty of clubs who are suffering for not having the cash to buy titles & success, therefore huge sponsors & profits, etc, over the past twenty years or so. But we are stuck with the rules that make it doubly difficult to compete, while others utilise the ill gotten gained profits to be able have huge sponsors & profits that give them a huge advantage over the rest of us.
And then there are clubs with huge debts like ManU. I see no reason why debts cant be factored into PSR. Even if it's a points deduction for every £100M of debt. The Premier League can be pretty creative when it suits their own purpose. So they could do 'something'. Anything.
If the debt is not an issue for ManU due to their profits, then they should be able to cover that debt pretty quickly over the course of a few years. And that should reduce their income, their profits & that should lower their spending ability. If it is an issue to pay it back over a few years, then isn't that a huge problem & part of the reason that PSR was created?
We agree that FFP/PSR has been shit, I just think that it's completely ridiculous that a club £1B in debt can spend 400% more than a club with no debt & some of the wealthiest owners in the world.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 19, 2024, 07:19:00 PM
I know this, because it's what i tell my Mrs every time she moans about my credit card balance.
Post by: john e on March 19, 2024, 08:54:15 PM
Debt is only a problem if you can not service it.
I know this, because it's what i tell my Mrs every time she moans about my credit card balance.
What’s the use of gold when you’re 80 years old
Post by: Beard82 on March 19, 2024, 09:22:32 PM
I agree with this - Debt risks a clubs future. Its a gamble. In a lot of cases low risk - but ultimately you'll never run into issues if you don't own anyone anything.Having huge debts, going bust, its all linked.
A club that has nearly £1B debt should not be allowed to have a 400% spending advantage over clubs with no debt. Especially if the club with no debt have wealthy owners.
If ManU have debt that is serviceable, what is the difference between them & their serviceable debt due to large profits, or a club having wealthy owners who can finance potential purchases?
If, the purpose of PSR is about stopping clubs spending beyond their means, going into debt, or going bust?
Lots of successful businesses have debt, the majority of the ManU debt was incurred prior to FFP.
I agree that the way the authorities have bought in FFP is poor but the current scheme is based on profitability which is a P&L measurement not debt which is Balance Sheet item.
The difference is that debt is interest bearing which impacts the P&L whereas investment isn’t but is still a Balance Sheet item.
Because Man U have huge revenue they can service large amounts if debt, the will always have an advantage over most clubs because this, the debt situation is thankfully holding them back.
But we are talking about football & its ridiculous "profit & sustainability rules". There are plenty of things that happen in big business that isn't allowed in football.
Spending one's own money, being one.
Im not saying that clubs should go all out & splash cash willy nilly. There has to be some form on cap on spending, otherwise we will see more Chelsea & ManC's. But the way we go about it at the moment is wrong.
Im not concerned if ManU's debt was incurred before FFP/PSR.
There are plenty of clubs who are suffering for not having the cash to buy titles & success, therefore huge sponsors & profits, etc, over the past twenty years or so. But we are stuck with the rules that make it doubly difficult to compete, while others utilise the ill gotten gained profits to be able have huge sponsors & profits that give them a huge advantage over the rest of us.
And then there are clubs with huge debts like ManU. I see no reason why debts cant be factored into PSR. Even if it's a points deduction for every £100M of debt. The Premier League can be pretty creative when it suits their own purpose. So they could do 'something'. Anything.
If the debt is not an issue for ManU due to their profits, then they should be able to cover that debt pretty quickly over the course of a few years. And that should reduce their income, their profits & that should lower their spending ability. If it is an issue to pay it back over a few years, then isn't that a huge problem & part of the reason that PSR was created?
We agree that FFP/PSR has been shit, I just think that it's completely ridiculous that a club £1B in debt can spend 400% more than a club with no debt & some of the wealthiest owners in the world.
Post by: sid1964 on March 20, 2024, 06:20:25 AM
Post by: andyh on March 20, 2024, 06:49:55 AM
Is the plan for increasing our stadium capacity by having an area of safe standing by taking all the seats out of the lower North Stand?I don’t think that’s how safe standing works
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on March 20, 2024, 08:04:41 AM
Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 20, 2024, 08:09:09 AM
Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.
So just not good at the actual football bit of football.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 20, 2024, 09:21:09 AM
Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.
But again, serviceable or not, (which it is at the moment, but things can change pretty quickly in both business & footballing worlds), is having huge debts but being allowed to spend 400% more than a club with no debt & much wealthier owners fair?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 20, 2024, 09:24:18 AM
Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.
But again, serviceable or not, (which it is at the moment, but things can change pretty quickly in both business & footballing worlds), is having huge debts but being allowed to spend 400% more than a club with no debt & much wealthier owners fair?
Why do you imagine that anyone wants the system to be fair? They don't claim it's fair, they don't seek fairness. The last thing anyone wants is for anything to be fair.
Post by: Nev on March 20, 2024, 09:27:03 AM
Man Utd might be 1b in debt but the club is worth 5b + so it’s hardly negative equity
They also had a bumper year commercially breaking all records. The gloryhunting twats complain about the Glaziers but the club are financially strong just not great appointing managers and buying half decent players.
But again, serviceable or not, (which it is at the moment, but things can change pretty quickly in both business & footballing worlds), is having huge debts but being allowed to spend 400% more than a club with no debt & much wealthier owners fair?
Why do you imagine that anyone wants the system to be fair? They don't claim it's fair, they don't seek fairness. The last thing anyone wants is for anything to be fair.
Absolutley, the erosion of the game being a meritocracy at the highest level has been a policy now for quite some time.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 20, 2024, 09:58:57 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 20, 2024, 10:01:24 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 20, 2024, 10:04:18 AM
That doesn't mean that we have to like it or accept it...
It does mean you have to accept it, because there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 20, 2024, 10:14:46 AM
I might recognise that its highly unlikely to change, but I can continue raise issue with it because I don't recognise it as correct in the spirit of the game.
There are lots of things that we all accept are unlikely to change yet we highlight nonetheless, be that in football, politics, etc.
Post by: eamonn on March 20, 2024, 10:34:47 AM
Well, no, but attacking it on the grounds of unfairness is like attacking Coldplay for being boring. It's what they're there to do.
About to headline Glastonbury for the *checks notes* fifth time!
Post by: Simon Page on March 20, 2024, 11:03:33 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 20, 2024, 11:15:13 AM
No I don't.
I might recognise that its highly unlikely to change, but I can continue raise issue with it because I don't recognise it as correct in the spirit of the game.
There are lots of things that we all accept are unlikely to change yet we highlight nonetheless, be that in football, politics, etc.
You've got every right to raise it, yes, but football is not a democracy and they've spent the last 30 years loading on more shit. But we are still all here, wasting huge chunks of our free time on it.
You're right, of course we can highlight it, but we've got no choice but to accept it in the meantime, because they set the rules.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 20, 2024, 11:54:53 AM
I think we are quibbling over the meaning of the word "accept" in different contexts here.
I understand that I cant change the scenario, therefore I have to acknowledge & accept that the scenario is unlikely to change.
But I am saying that I do not have to accept the scenario as being fair & correct.
Which is why I raise it as an issue. Similarly to how we all make comments regarding lineups, player performances, potential signings, etc. We have no control or ability to change any of those things. But we comment all the same.
If you think not being able to change something means that one has to accept it, then that means you have to accept my viewpoint on this matter because you cannot change my opinion.
I don't actually think that of course. Because context.
Either way, & more importantly than contextual grammar, I don't like the fact that ManU are allowed debts that small countries would baulk at, yet they are allowed to spend 400% more than Villa are, despite Villa having no debt & some of the wealthiest owners in the world.
Christ on a bike, international breaks are shit, lol...
I think for my own sanity I should take a break from here until something interesting happens with Villa...
Post by: Hookeysmith on March 20, 2024, 01:14:20 PM
Whoever raises the issue, pundits, sky sports, Talk Shite, FA officials or even football financial experts it is discussed for a miniscule amount of time with none saying "They are fucked" or "dont worry their time will come"
I am totally convinced they are playing for time until their new shiny Euro league is ready to go again so whatever the FA charge them with will be irrelevant.
Not sure why the likes of Everton or Forest have just said they will not accept anything until they are dealt with.
There seems to be a reluctant acceptance that they will not get punished
Post by: Dave on March 20, 2024, 01:18:48 PM
Not sure why the likes of Everton or Forest have just said they will not accept anything until they are dealt with.
I'm sure the righteousness of their position will be a big consolation to them in the Championship next season.
Post by: Stu on March 20, 2024, 06:01:26 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 20, 2024, 06:24:27 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 20, 2024, 08:32:57 PM
My hatred of Man City's cheating and its implications for us since 2008, is so intense it is the one thing that has almost driven me to give up on the sport.
I don't like them, but they don't seem to have scooped up the hoardes of arrogant glory hunters that Manchester United and Liverpool.have over the years.
Post by: Dave on March 20, 2024, 08:55:14 PM
My hatred of Man City's cheating and its implications for us since 2008, is so intense it is the one thing that has almost driven me to give up on the sport.
I don't like them, but they don't seem to have scooped up the hoardes of arrogant glory hunters that Manchester United and Liverpool.have over the years.
They've not had time to yet though, have they? The annoying guy in the pub or at work from our era isn't at that time of life yet.
The 8 -12 year old kids who decided to be Man City fans because of how good Aguero was on FIFA are probably doing their A-Levels now, and are still five years away from being in our societal bubbles.
They'll be there.
Post by: Risso on March 20, 2024, 09:02:28 PM
They've not had time to yet though, have they? The annoying guy in the pub or at work from our era isn't at that time of life yet.
The 8 -12 year old kids who decided to be Man City fans because of how good Aguero was on FIFA are probably doing their A-Levels now, and are still five years away from being in our societal bubbles.
They'll be there.
I can't speak for everywhere obviously, but all of our kids's friends who are into football still mainly support Man U or Liverpool. There are a few Leicester fans, but the majority are glory hunters. I can't think of any Man City fans, and you don't see many of their tops in Leicester, unlike those of the red Scousers and Mancs. There will be some, but I think they're miles away from getting anywhere near the other two.
Post by: LeonW on March 20, 2024, 09:08:29 PM
My hatred of Man City's cheating and its implications for us since 2008, is so intense it is the one thing that has almost driven me to give up on the sport.
I pretty much feel the same. Even if they get punished, it would have to be extremely significant to punish them for all those steps they’ve been able to bypass on the way to get to where they are now.
In the same way we may qualify for the champions league this season yet still have to sell an asset to meet our obligations in the medium term, Manchester City were able to completely bypass such considerations and continue on their trajectory. At the same time Randy pulled the plug on the spending, they went into overdrive.
That is one of the most significant considerations which often gets missed.
Post by: algy on March 20, 2024, 09:24:41 PM
Yep, in Wrexham it's predominantly Wrexham, Manc Utd, and Liverpool supporters (in that order). After that you're probably looking at Everton, Villa, Wolves & Legia Warsaw (big Polish community) vying for a distant 4th place. Very few Manc City supporters about, I'd say - don't recall seeing any in town ever.They've not had time to yet though, have they? The annoying guy in the pub or at work from our era isn't at that time of life yet.
The 8 -12 year old kids who decided to be Man City fans because of how good Aguero was on FIFA are probably doing their A-Levels now, and are still five years away from being in our societal bubbles.
They'll be there.
I can't speak for everywhere obviously, but all of our kids's friends who are into football still mainly support Man U or Liverpool. There are a few Leicester fans, but the majority are glory hunters. I can't think of any Man City fans, and you don't see many of their tops in Leicester, unlike those of the red Scousers and Mancs. There will be some, but I think they're miles away from getting anywhere near the other two.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 20, 2024, 09:28:23 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 20, 2024, 09:30:54 PM
My hatred of Man City's cheating and its implications for us since 2008, is so intense it is the one thing that has almost driven me to give up on the sport.
Even if they ritually sacrificed their mascots pre-game to appease the Football Gods, I still wouldn't hate them as much as the Red Scouse and Yanited.
Post by: Simon Page on March 20, 2024, 09:35:04 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on March 20, 2024, 09:52:23 PM
Post by: Stu on March 21, 2024, 09:29:28 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 21, 2024, 09:42:15 AM
An awful state of affairs, and bad parenting to boot.
Post by: Nev on March 21, 2024, 09:52:59 AM
My Godson had absolutely no choice whatsoever and has blossomed into committed Villa fan, travelling into Europe this season.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 21, 2024, 10:18:45 AM
My Godson had absolutely no choice whatsoever and has blossomed into committed Villa fan, travelling into Europe this season.
He'll be all the better for it. If I didn't support Villa (and chose Yanited), I'd have grown up in an orphanage, and that's the way it should be.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 21, 2024, 10:41:57 AM
Post by: SamTheMouse on March 21, 2024, 10:59:48 AM
Happily, his peers have now nearly all heard of us, even down here in the deepest Var, which I take to mean our plan for global domination is progressing nicely.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 21, 2024, 11:26:32 AM
My youngest regularly wears a Villa training top to school. It makes my chest swell a tiny bit with paternal pride every time I wave him off.
Happily, his peers have now nearly all heard of us, even down here in the deepest Var, which I take to mean our plan for global domination is progressing nicely.
Do they like their songs?
Post by: Simon Page on March 21, 2024, 12:26:59 PM
Still the ranking appears to be, Villa, Liverpool, Inter Miami, Barca/Real Madrid, then the Mancs and London clubs.
Of those behind the one true choice, I really object to the Yanks and Iberians. The others are bad enough, but it takes a different level of insecurity and insufferability to follow a celeb player or truly hateful anti-football conglomerate from another country. These people grow up to be middle managers and HR sadists. They need isolating and firing into space.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 21, 2024, 01:14:52 PM
Post by: Duncan Shaw on March 21, 2024, 03:35:19 PM
Post by: lovejoy on March 21, 2024, 03:43:17 PM
Stop nation states owning clubs (political interference and soft influence)
Put a cap on debt levels.
Require owners to set aside funds for clubs to be financially sustainable over 3- 5 years (so if they walked away the club could manage in the medium term).
If spomeone is rich enough and happy to pump the money in then why stop them?
Post by: Richard E on March 21, 2024, 06:22:06 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 21, 2024, 06:26:04 PM
Post by: Nii Lamptey on March 21, 2024, 06:35:09 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/R9c4wwj/Betano-logo.png) (https://ibb.co/R9c4wwj)
Post by: lovejoy on March 21, 2024, 06:36:12 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 21, 2024, 06:36:30 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 21, 2024, 06:41:44 PM
Post by: Bad English on March 21, 2024, 06:54:35 PM
Great. A logo that looks like a giant arse.We've got John McGinn!
Post by: PeterWithe on March 21, 2024, 08:37:39 PM
Still the ranking appears to be, Villa, Liverpool, Inter Miami, Barca/Real Madrid, then the Mancs and London clubs.
Of those behind the one true choice, I really object to the Yanks and Iberians. The others are bad enough, but it takes a different level of insecurity and insufferability to follow a celeb player or truly hateful anti-football conglomerate from another country. These people grow up to be middle managers and HR sadists. They need isolating and firing into space.
My boy has a Inter Miami kit, I haven't yet got around to finding out enough about them to hate them as much as the others, and, well, he wanted one and anything for a quiet life.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 21, 2024, 09:09:22 PM
Still the ranking appears to be, Villa, Liverpool, Inter Miami, Barca/Real Madrid, then the Mancs and London clubs.
Of those behind the one true choice, I really object to the Yanks and Iberians. The others are bad enough, but it takes a different level of insecurity and insufferability to follow a celeb player or truly hateful anti-football conglomerate from another country. These people grow up to be middle managers and HR sadists. They need isolating and firing into space.
My boy has a Inter Miami kit, I haven't yet got around to finding out enough about them to hate them as much as the others, and, well, he wanted one and anything for a quiet life.
Yep. Had to buy mine a Real Madrid shirt, and worse, watch him burst into tears when Kane missed that pen v France. I had burst out laughing which luckily he hadn’t noticed as I comforted him.
You just have to do these things as a parent. On the plus side, he has no problem telling gloryhunters what he thinks of them.
Post by: dorsetvillian on March 21, 2024, 09:27:21 PM
Post by: john e on March 21, 2024, 09:32:13 PM
Post by: Stu on March 21, 2024, 09:35:08 PM
Leicester are in trouble with the Premier League now, apparently.
Just seen John Percy tweet this story. It feels like a critical mass now: teams trying to compete are getting pinged left right and centre yet the gigantic elephant in the room that is the manc oil bandits just roll on with no issue.
Post by: ldavfc4eva on March 21, 2024, 09:35:34 PM
Post by: Chris Harte on March 21, 2024, 09:45:10 PM
Guess we will add Acorns as the European shirt sponsor? Win win if so for everyoneNot all countries in Europe ban gambling sites, so it'll be BK8 in Lille.
Seems that Spain, Italy and the Netherlands do, however.
https://theathletic.com/4383423/2023/04/07/premier-league-betting-italy-spain/
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 21, 2024, 09:47:16 PM
Aston Villa have sealed the biggest front of shirt sponsorship in the club’s history with Greek online sports betting platform Betano — £20m annually for two years! The Betano deal runs for two years until 2026, when the ban on gambling companies on shirt fronts comes into effect from the start of the 26/27 season.
Pretty impactful figures. Reported annual amounts here, no ITK, but Castore (£3m) to Adidas (£12m), and BK (£6m) to Betano (£20m). Dare we say well done Heck?
Post by: Chris Harte on March 21, 2024, 09:51:36 PM
I'd not seen the figures reported anywhere (I'd got used to them all being "undisclosed") but if they're accurate that's an extra £23m a season. If that's down to Heck then you have to say well done.Aston Villa have sealed the biggest front of shirt sponsorship in the club’s history with Greek online sports betting platform Betano — £20m annually for two years! The Betano deal runs for two years until 2026, when the ban on gambling companies on shirt fronts comes into effect from the start of the 26/27 season.
Pretty impactful figures. Reported annual amounts here, no ITK, but Castore (£3m) to Adudas (£12m), and BK (£6m) to Betano (£20m). Dare we say well done Heck?
Post by: VillaTim on March 21, 2024, 09:53:44 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 21, 2024, 09:56:50 PM
Post by: Chris Harte on March 21, 2024, 10:00:49 PM
Castore I'm guessing was down to the wet shirts.
BK8 I'd have thought it was because we wanted something more squeeky clean were it not for the fact we've replaced them with another betting company.
Post by: VillaTim on March 21, 2024, 10:22:44 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 21, 2024, 10:22:47 PM
Post by: Chris Harte on March 21, 2024, 10:30:44 PM
I thought new deals with gambling firms had been banned.Only from 2026 I think.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 21, 2024, 10:39:23 PM
I thought new deals with gambling firms had been banned.Only from 2026 I think.
No gambling sponsors allowed 26/27 and onwards. Hence two year deal.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 21, 2024, 10:49:54 PM
Post by: VillaTim on March 21, 2024, 10:58:12 PM
Thanks both for the info.I thought new deals with gambling firms had been banned.Only from 2026 I think.
No gambling sponsors allowed 26/27 and onwards. Hence two year deal.
Does this mean a ban also on all the incessant tv ads during the games for bet365 / paddy power etc . ?
Post by: Somniloquism on March 21, 2024, 11:15:52 PM
Thanks both for the info.I thought new deals with gambling firms had been banned.Only from 2026 I think.
No gambling sponsors allowed 26/27 and onwards. Hence two year deal.
Does this mean a ban also on all the incessant tv ads during the games for bet365 / paddy power etc . ?
No. The clubs agreed to the betting shirt sponser bans, but general advertising ban is a government thing.
Post by: VillaTim on March 21, 2024, 11:18:05 PM
Bit of a mixed message then in this country at least.Thanks both for the info.I thought new deals with gambling firms had been banned.Only from 2026 I think.
No gambling sponsors allowed 26/27 and onwards. Hence two year deal.
Does this mean a ban also on all the incessant tv ads during the games for bet365 / paddy power etc . ?
No. The clubs agreed to the betting shirt sponser bans, but general advertising ban is a government thing.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 21, 2024, 11:20:18 PM
With how kit and merch deals work clubs don't make a massive from sales. Most of the money comes from the initial agreement, royalties on actual sales are pretty small. Usually between 5 and 10% of wholesale of non club sales. Obviously any the club sells directly has a bigger margin as they buy at wholesale and sell at RRP. That's why the initial deal is so important.
Ah, okay. I read somewhere how much Celtic make over and above the initial deal, and it seemed quite a lot. But as I can’t mind where I read it, I’m not going to start quoting half-remembered figures.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 21, 2024, 11:25:49 PM
Bit of a mixed message then in this country at least.Thanks both for the info.I thought new deals with gambling firms had been banned.Only from 2026 I think.
No gambling sponsors allowed 26/27 and onwards. Hence two year deal.
Does this mean a ban also on all the incessant tv ads during the games for bet365 / paddy power etc . ?
No. The clubs agreed to the betting shirt sponser bans, but general advertising ban is a government thing.
Quite:
“With incoming new government legislation, online betting brands will no longer be able to be Premier League shirt sponsors from the start of the 2026/27 seasons. They will, however, still be able to be sleeve, training wear, stadium naming rights and global partners at Premier League teams.”
(From something called Sport Quake)
Post by: Somniloquism on March 22, 2024, 08:01:43 AM
Quite:
“With incoming new government legislation, online betting brands will no longer be able to be Premier League shirt sponsors from the start of the 2026/27 seasons. They will, however, still be able to be sleeve, training wear, stadium naming rights and global partners at Premier League teams.”
(From something called Sport Quake)
AFAIK, there is no current government legislation. There has been rumours of the Government doing something which might be another reason the PL "voluntarily" voted for the plan, but it isn't anything else as of yet.
Post by: lovejoy on March 22, 2024, 08:38:25 AM
Leicester haven’t even filed their accounts - what have they got to hide?
Post by: Dogtanian on March 22, 2024, 11:54:13 AM
There’s a shirt sponsor and a kits thread for this chat.
Leicester haven’t even filed their accounts - what have they got to hide?
As I understand it, they're not due to file them till the end of this month. I think what the articles are referring to is that the Premier League wanted their accounts by December, but that rule went into place after Leicester left the Prem. So they argued they can't be held to it.
Post by: JUAN PABLO on March 22, 2024, 12:06:58 PM
Post by: LeeB on March 22, 2024, 12:11:03 PM
I heard on radio Chelsea are in serious trouble , something to do with need 100 million profit on players by end of June. Good news.
They've already had a high level meeting with their Saudi investment partners to address this in the last week.
Young Chuck will be quad biking on the sand dunes before he knows what's hit him.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 22, 2024, 12:14:31 PM
Post by: LeeB on March 22, 2024, 12:18:04 PM
I know others probably would say no but id take chuck back if price was right. Think he has huge potential. Chelsea not in position tp say no either. Doubt he would say no of w ecan offer CL foot ball compared to potentially no european football with chelsea chavs
Yeah so would I, but probably not on the terms they will have given him.
Post by: Nev on March 22, 2024, 12:18:14 PM
I heard on radio Chelsea are in serious trouble , something to do with need 100 million profit on players by end of June. Good news.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that whatever happens, they won't get a points deduction.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 22, 2024, 12:19:55 PM
I know others probably would say no but id take chuck back if price was right. Think he has huge potential. Chelsea not in position tp say no either. Doubt he would say no of w ecan offer CL foot ball compared to potentially no european football with chelsea chavs
Yeah so would I, but probably not on the terms they will have given him.
We can offer them something that they can't though - a guaranteed seat in the dressing room and never having to get changed in the corridor.
Post by: Gareth on March 22, 2024, 12:21:23 PM
I know others probably would say no but id take chuck back if price was right. Think he has huge potential. Chelsea not in position tp say no either. Doubt he would say no of w ecan offer CL foot ball compared to potentially no european football with chelsea chavs
On talent absolutely, it’s all there to be a class player BUT thus far his entire step up to senior football has been blighted by injury, looking at his physique it’s probs just growing but he needs to go somewhere where he plays every week not 10 mins here, 20 mins here, 2 months off.
Post by: LeeB on March 22, 2024, 12:22:11 PM
I know others probably would say no but id take chuck back if price was right. Think he has huge potential. Chelsea not in position tp say no either. Doubt he would say no of w ecan offer CL foot ball compared to potentially no european football with chelsea chavs
Yeah so would I, but probably not on the terms they will have given him.
We can offer them something that they can't though - a guaranteed seat in the dressing room and never having to get changed in the corridor.
A seat in the canteen.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 22, 2024, 12:29:47 PM
I know others probably would say no but id take chuck back if price was right. Think he has huge potential. Chelsea not in position tp say no either. Doubt he would say no of w ecan offer CL foot ball compared to potentially no european football with chelsea chavs
Yeah so would I, but probably not on the terms they will have given him.
We can offer them something that they can't though - a guaranteed seat in the dressing room and never having to get changed in the corridor.
A seat in the canteen.
Not having to share a pair of pants with Diego Moreira.
Post by: Rigadon on March 22, 2024, 12:59:44 PM
I heard on radio Chelsea are in serious trouble , something to do with need 100 million profit on players by end of June. Good news.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that whatever happens, they won't get a points deduction.
I don't get the 'by June' stuff. What is that the deadline of? Google tells me that the transfer window didn't open until mid June last year?!
Post by: Somniloquism on March 22, 2024, 01:03:07 PM
I heard on radio Chelsea are in serious trouble , something to do with need 100 million profit on players by end of June. Good news.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that whatever happens, they won't get a points deduction.
I don't get the 'by June' stuff. What is that the deadline of? Google tells me that the transfer window didn't open until mid June last year?!
I said the same with Forest. Whilst sales can be made pre-July 1st, buying clubs wouldn't actually register the player until then and I expect would want to have the transfer on the accounts for the new financial year, so I'm not sure how the selling club could claim it on their accounts for the previous financial year.
Post by: LeeS on March 22, 2024, 02:50:54 PM
The FFP accounting period runs to June. That was what did Forest over. They sold Brennan Johnson in the transfer window but outside the FFP one.I heard on radio Chelsea are in serious trouble , something to do with need 100 million profit on players by end of June. Good news.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that whatever happens, they won't get a points deduction.
I don't get the 'by June' stuff. What is that the deadline of? Google tells me that the transfer window didn't open until mid June last year?!
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 22, 2024, 02:52:03 PM
Post by: Rigadon on March 22, 2024, 02:54:15 PM
Post by: Gareth on March 22, 2024, 02:58:46 PM
So if the Chelsea ‘story’ is true, they are already in breach because they wouldn’t be able to sell any players between now and June? I wonder if they just decided to take the hit on a punishment (somewhere between 4 and 6 points as we now know from the Forest and Everton cases)?
Think the window opens about 14th June so they are saying there is a couple of weeks to sell to show fee in June….
You’d take the 4 points penalty rather than sell for millions under value
Post by: Drummond on March 22, 2024, 03:59:51 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 22, 2024, 04:13:34 PM
The FFP accounting period runs to June. That was what did Forest over. They sold Brennan Johnson in the transfer window but outside the FFP one.I heard on radio Chelsea are in serious trouble , something to do with need 100 million profit on players by end of June. Good news.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that whatever happens, they won't get a points deduction.
I don't get the 'by June' stuff. What is that the deadline of? Google tells me that the transfer window didn't open until mid June last year?!
Yes it might run to June but as I mentioned, there is agreeing the deal, and there is the payment. Not sure whether the other club would be classed as a creditor to the selling club and be able to be put in the June accounts, but I doubt the buying club want it on the accounts before the 1st July simply because that is when his contract will start AND they probably don't have a load of spare change in that FFP period. So you could have a transfer of a player being in the 2023/24 accounts for Chelsea, and in the 2024/25 accounts for whoever buys them.
Post by: Steve67 on March 23, 2024, 01:45:33 PM
Post by: olaftab on March 23, 2024, 02:14:58 PM
Do we know when the next big money TV deal is being signed and does this make any difference to FFP?That will only make a difference if clubs agree to not blow it all away on super fat contracts for players.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 23, 2024, 02:36:10 PM
Do we know when the next big money TV deal is being signed and does this make any difference to FFP?
That will only make a difference if clubs agree to not blow it all away on super fat contracts for players.
It's preferable to contracts for super fat players (Ross Mc, Gabby etc.)
Post by: SaddVillan on March 24, 2024, 01:20:32 PM
Obviously we'll be getting dosh from them - wonder if we've structured some of the payments due to be made so they fall within this season’s income for FFP calculations?
Post by: Rigadon on March 24, 2024, 01:49:48 PM
Post by: OCD on March 24, 2024, 02:10:51 PM
Just thinking about our new front of shirt sponsor - Betano and our switch to Adidas as shirt manufacturer.
Obviously we'll be getting dosh from them - wonder if we've structured some of the payments due to be made so they fall within this season’s income for FFP calculations?
I imagine with Sawiris being on Adidas' board, we could probably structure however we wanted to.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 24, 2024, 02:34:31 PM
I was in a Sports Direct shop earlier (in Wales). My son wanted to see the footballs shirts. As expected, no Villa. As expected, Manchester / Liverpool / Spurs / Arsenal. Completely weirdly, the only other replica shirts were West Ham.
It's almost as if these retailers stock what they know they can sell.
Post by: lovejoy on March 24, 2024, 04:16:23 PM
Post by: Rigadon on March 24, 2024, 04:52:48 PM
I was in a Sports Direct shop earlier (in Wales). My son wanted to see the footballs shirts. As expected, no Villa. As expected, Manchester / Liverpool / Spurs / Arsenal. Completely weirdly, the only other replica shirts were West Ham.
It's almost as if these retailers stock what they know they can sell.
West Ham? In west wales?
Post by: Toronto Villa on March 24, 2024, 05:22:06 PM
Aston Villa have made significant strides on the pitch under Unai Emery, becoming one of the most feared sides in the Premier League, capable of ending a 28-year wait to win silverware.
Despite warnings from outside, Emery's initial impact at Villa wasn't a flash in the pan. He has proved himself an elite manager intent on taking the club back to the top table of European football. The Spaniard has performed a minor miracle in keeping Villa competitive in the top four this season while juggling a European campaign too, given the injuries his key players have suffered.
So whether Villa manage to secure qualification for the Champions League this season or not, Emery has a big task ahead of him to continue finishing above at least a couple of the 'big six' every season. Considering the added strain adhering to top-flight profit and sustainability rules - which prevents Villa offering wages which other clubs can and splashing hundreds of millions of pounds every year - the club must get a lot right off the pitch to ensure Emery has the tools he requires to compete at the highest level.
Villa were nearly £120m in the red in 2023, but the figures contributing to what UEFA claim to be the highest losses in Europe are in line with the strategic business plan of V Sports. The club's revenue increased during the year to £217.7m, up from £178.4m.
A significant part of this increase was driven by finishing 7th in the Premier League versus a 14th place finish the year before, but there were also improvements in gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial revenue. It's pivotal that Villa take advantage of their dramatic improvement on the pitch under Emery by securing lucrative sponsorship deals which will help them remain competitive in the top six every season. And this is exactly what Villa are pursuing under Nassef Sawiris and the club's president of business operations, Chris Heck.
"It’s another sample of this club becoming an absolute big club in the world," Heck said after the club confirmed it had entered into an agreement with Atairos to become a partner in V Sports. "We will have this infusion of support for V Sports and it is going to be great for Villa as we continue to grow."
Atairos’ capital investment will primarily be used to fund growth and infrastructure investments, with the aim of creating material and sustainable value for Villa and the broader V Sports network. Atairos is said to be worth $6.5bn, and Villa claim their link-up "positions the them firmly for an exciting next phase of growth".
Villa's short-term plan is to disrupt the top six regularly. Their long-term plan is to form part of a 'great eight', essentially expanding the 'big six', who have had the opportunity to build their commercial strength over more than a decade since the Premier League football has boomed.
Two more major deals have been leaked in the media, which prove that Villa are making strong progress off the pitch. Villa's kits will be manufactured by Adidas from next season after Sawiris - who owns around seven per cent of the German company - and Heck struck an agreement.
The deal is reportedly worth multi-millions of pounds for the men’s and women’s teams, and the academy. It came after complaints from playing staff earlier this season about ‘wet-look’ Castore shirts.
Kit manufacturer sponsorship revenues have been combined with total merchandising revenues to provide as good a measure of club popularity as any, and Adidas will hopefully help take Villa into a global market in the years to come.
During his successful reign at the Philadelphia 76ers, Heck tapped into fashion, art and culture to increase the franchise's visibility. They collaborated with Nike to make exclusive shoes, which were given to influencers after they had been to games, and that pushed millions of social media users towards the NBA franchise.
The Sixers now have one of the largest season ticket bases in the NBA, and more than 15,000 fans on a season ticket waiting list. The franchise’s valuation was under $300m when Heck first arrived, now, it stands in excess of $3bn.
Heck, now tasked with building Villa as a major global brand and increasing the club's revenue streams, has also overseen a £40m sponsorship deal with Betano.
The Telegraph claim the Greek online betting platform will be the most lucrative front-of-shirt sponsor in the club’s history. The Betano deal is set to run for two years until 2026 when the ban on gambling companies on shirt fronts comes into effect.
Back in December, UEFA added Betano as a global sponsor of this summer's 2024 European Football Championship. The betting firm will also sponsor the next two editions of the Copa America. Betano currently feature on the shirts of Portuguese clubs FC Porto and Sporting CP, as well as Brazilian clubs Atletico Miniero and Fluminense.
The 'big six' have grown huge revenue streams because they are global brands, meaning sponsors are more willing to open their wallets in order to be more visible. Heck briefly explained his plan to continue exporting Villa across the globe at the end of last year.
"On the business side we have three priorities that everyone lives throughout the day and the week and the season," Heck told Villa TV. It is very important to us.
Local is number one. Global is number two and then culture is three. Talking about our fans in local, that is the heart of this club and what we are going to do going forward, all the changes in Villa Park, the construction, it is not going to be for one group of fans, it is going to be for all of our fans.
"I think when we have the focus of that fans first mentality, we can achieve our goals. Regarding the globalisation of the club, a lot of the hard work is done for us, with what Unai and Monchi has built on the pitch.
"The attention we are getting is unparalleled. It only works if we build up our content and we have something for our fans not only locally but globally. That of course turns into sponsorship."
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 24, 2024, 06:24:27 PM
Quote
During his successful reign at the Philadelphia 76ers, Heck tapped into fashion, art and culture to increase the franchise's visibility. They collaborated with Nike to make exclusive shoes, which were given to influencers after they had been to games, and that pushed millions of social media users towards the NBA franchise.
Can't wait till similar plans are unveiled for Villa.
Post by: Border villan on March 24, 2024, 06:31:28 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on March 24, 2024, 07:18:05 PM
Post by: dekko on March 24, 2024, 07:42:26 PM
There is an entire generation that doesn’t think the way we do or have. I see that in my kids every day. While there is always a need to respect the past and those who have been with us for many years, the club has to push ahead and attract the fans of the future. Some of the stuff US sports teams have done to attract new fans would have been met with similar disdain by traditionalists, but the teams that get to that audience before their competition does will have the best chance at maximizing commercial revenues. The success on the pitch is critical of course and only makes it easier to attract new sponsors and business partners.
I'm absolutely fine with whatever they do as long as it does not negatively effect the longstanding or matchgoing fan.
Signature Nikes or influencer deals or whatever - fine, bring it on.
Terrace View or Lower Grounds? Absolutely not.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 24, 2024, 08:30:03 PM
There is an entire generation that doesn’t think the way we do or have. I see that in my kids every day. While there is always a need to respect the past and those who have been with us for many years, the club has to push ahead and attract the fans of the future. Some of the stuff US sports teams have done to attract new fans would have been met with similar disdain by traditionalists, but the teams that get to that audience before their competition does will have the best chance at maximizing commercial revenues. The success on the pitch is critical of course and only makes it easier to attract new sponsors and business partners.
Hi Toronto (other US based H&V folk), I know Canada is not the USA but do you remember the 76ers going from Doug Ellis to “????”. If so, what were the stages and timescales, how did the average fans feel about it? Basically what is the playbook that we can expect?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 24, 2024, 08:42:59 PM
There is an entire generation that doesn’t think the way we do or have. I see that in my kids every day. While there is always a need to respect the past and those who have been with us for many years, the club has to push ahead and attract the fans of the future. Some of the stuff US sports teams have done to attract new fans would have been met with similar disdain by traditionalists, but the teams that get to that audience before their competition does will have the best chance at maximizing commercial revenues. The success on the pitch is critical of course and only makes it easier to attract new sponsors and business partners.
Nice to have it confirmed that on-pitch success remains critical - and, err, that it enables us to attract new partners.
I thought it was the whole point of the endeavour. Without success of the pitch, it is all a total waste of time, we might as well go and start 'supporting' the M&S share price.
Post by: Gareth on March 24, 2024, 09:03:59 PM
There is an entire generation that doesn’t think the way we do or have. I see that in my kids every day. While there is always a need to respect the past and those who have been with us for many years, the club has to push ahead and attract the fans of the future. Some of the stuff US sports teams have done to attract new fans would have been met with similar disdain by traditionalists, but the teams that get to that audience before their competition does will have the best chance at maximizing commercial revenues. The success on the pitch is critical of course and only makes it easier to attract new sponsors and business partners.
I'm absolutely fine with whatever they do as long as it does not negatively effect the longstanding or matchgoing fan.
Signature Nikes or influencer deals or whatever - fine, bring it on.
Terrace View or Lower Grounds? Absolutely not.
That ship has sailed…long standing fan is a concept they do not care a jot for….
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 24, 2024, 09:09:45 PM
Post by: VillaTim on March 24, 2024, 09:44:53 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on March 24, 2024, 11:58:54 PM
There is an entire generation that doesn’t think the way we do or have. I see that in my kids every day. While there is always a need to respect the past and those who have been with us for many years, the club has to push ahead and attract the fans of the future. Some of the stuff US sports teams have done to attract new fans would have been met with similar disdain by traditionalists, but the teams that get to that audience before their competition does will have the best chance at maximizing commercial revenues. The success on the pitch is critical of course and only makes it easier to attract new sponsors and business partners.
Hi Toronto (other US based H&V folk), I know Canada is not the USA but do you remember the 76ers going from Doug Ellis to “????”. If so, what were the stages and timescales, how did the average fans feel about it? Basically what is the playbook that we can expect?
It was as well received as it will be with us amongst very traditional fans. Change isn’t easy. Accepting that as tenured employees in companies or fans of a team isn’t much different. The kind of things he and the franchise did were very different to what had been done before. The 76ers were very much of the past with some great players and a history, but stuck in the past. So a lot of what was done was to modernize the team while employing a complete rebuild of the playing staff. They used “trust the process” as a bit of a tagline which to be honest was ridiculed as they went through said process. And while a few years on from that they haven’t yet won the NBA title they have had an excellent and competitive team while the franchise value is much greater than it once was.
There are going to be similarities it what happens with us I imagine of Heck has his way. And I guarantee many of us older fans of the club won’t like it or agree with it. But there are fans out there the club needs to attract. It’s what all the sides we want to compete with have done and we’ve been left behind.
Post by: LeeS on March 27, 2024, 10:11:54 AM
So we aint buying the Wheels site then?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 27, 2024, 10:57:22 AM
Post by: Risso on March 27, 2024, 11:32:40 AM
I don't think we'd ever have considered moving over there.
It does show though, that there is land in Brum to be had if you want to build a new ground. That lot have been there 5 minutes and have sorted the space in no time.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 11:40:00 AM
A lot of clubs are expanding or moving to new stadium while we twiddle our thumbs.
Post by: The Edge on March 27, 2024, 11:40:43 AM
Not really. That ship has sailed for us. There were a couple of similar sites as near to VP as Wheels is to the sty but they have now gone. The Serpentine and the industrial estate where Birmingham Wholesale markets now reside. Far as I can tell the next closest land should they wish to re-locate would be next to the Alexander Stadium.I don't think we'd ever have considered moving over there.
It does show though, that there is land in Brum to be had if you want to build a new ground. That lot have been there 5 minutes and have sorted the space in no time.
Post by: paul_e on March 27, 2024, 11:41:54 AM
I don't think we'd ever have considered moving over there.
It does show though, that there is land in Brum to be had if you want to build a new ground. That lot have been there 5 minutes and have sorted the space in no time.
There is, but that site will need lots of work to be suitable for a 60k stadium (that actually has 60k visitors regularly).
The land freed up by HS2 at the old LDV site would be just as good for a development but suffers from the same transport restrictions. A ground there would look magnificent from the M6 though.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 11:49:33 AM
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 11:53:51 AM
Blues now have an opportunity to develop the City Centre multi-purpose stadium that we probably should have been looking at. Even if we do a complete rebuild where we are, a stadium that close to the City would seem a more likely venue for major events.
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
Heck seems to be pursuing a stamford bridge type blue print of keep the capacity around 40k but butcher the ground to cram in more hospitality and this is why I am so concerned that he is the wrong man at the worst possible time. Zero imagination and zero fucks given about the future beyond his stay with us.
Post by: Risso on March 27, 2024, 11:55:47 AM
Blues now have an opportunity to develop the City Centre multi-purpose stadium that we probably should have been looking at. Even if we do a complete rebuild where we are, a stadium that close to the City would seem a more likely venue for major events.around 40j
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
Heck seems to be pursuing a stamford bridge type blue print of keep the capacity around 40k but butcher the ground to cram in more hospitality and this is why I am so concerned that he is the wrong man at the worst possible time. Zero imagination and zero fucks given about the future beyond his stay with us.
It really does seem to be a sticking plaster approach. Rinse the existing fan base, somehow shoehorn in a few hundred extra seats, and hope for the best.
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on March 27, 2024, 12:01:07 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 12:01:38 PM
Blues now have an opportunity to develop the City Centre multi-purpose stadium that we probably should have been looking at. Even if we do a complete rebuild where we are, a stadium that close to the City would seem a more likely venue for major events.around 40j
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
Heck seems to be pursuing a stamford bridge type blue print of keep the capacity around 40k but butcher the ground to cram in more hospitality and this is why I am so concerned that he is the wrong man at the worst possible time. Zero imagination and zero fucks given about the future beyond his stay with us.
It really does seem to be a sticking plaster approach. Rinse the existing fan base, somehow shoehorn in a few hundred extra seats, and hope for the best.
It's shocking mate. He is so lucky things are going well on the pitch and the feel good factor means fans want to gloss over with a sort of amnesia the fact that he pulled the plug on an imminent and badly needed redevelopment.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 12:04:49 PM
I wonder if we had bought that land or similar, what the feeling would be when demolishing Villa Park.
1. If Chris Heck's announcement of a cancelled redevelopment had never been made we would be looking ahead with confidence to a 50k Villa Park by 2026 and things like the Warehouse etc!
2. If they had said they were pausing to examine other options we'd be anticipating they were going bigger than they had been originally.
3. If they had said Villa Park, for whatever reason, cannot match where we are going and we will have to move, we'd have to just adjust to that.
4. The awful comms mean we have to assume there is going to be continued short-term thinking at the club and more and more clubs are going to end up better served than we are.
Post by: The Edge on March 27, 2024, 12:09:56 PM
Blues now have an opportunity to develop the City Centre multi-purpose stadium that we probably should have been looking at. Even if we do a complete rebuild where we are, a stadium that close to the City would seem a more likely venue for major events.It does. And that's a very unpleasant thought when you consider what an utter tinpot club they are.
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
Post by: paul_e on March 27, 2024, 12:15:20 PM
I wonder if we had bought that land or similar, what the feeling would be when demolishing Villa Park.
1. If Chris Heck's announcement of a cancelled redevelopment had never been made we would be looking ahead with confidence to a 50k Villa Park by 2026 and things like the Warehouse etc!
2. If they had said they were pausing to examine other options we'd be anticipating they were going bigger than they had been originally.
3. If they had said Villa Park, for whatever reason, cannot match where we are going and we will have to move, we'd have to just adjust to that.
4. The awful comms mean we have to assume there is going to be continued short-term thinking at the club and more and more clubs are going to end up better served than we are.
I think "some have assumed" fits in there better. I'm not saying you're wrong to do that but it's just as easy to assume that the 2nd and/or 3rd options are on the table and they're holding back on an anouncement for some reason.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 12:18:21 PM
I wonder if we had bought that land or similar, what the feeling would be when demolishing Villa Park.
1. If Chris Heck's announcement of a cancelled redevelopment had never been made we would be looking ahead with confidence to a 50k Villa Park by 2026 and things like the Warehouse etc!
2. If they had said they were pausing to examine other options we'd be anticipating they were going bigger than they had been originally.
3. If they had said Villa Park, for whatever reason, cannot match where we are going and we will have to move, we'd have to just adjust to that.
4. The awful comms mean we have to assume there is going to be continued short-term thinking at the club and more and more clubs are going to end up better served than we are.
I think "some have assumed" fits in there better. I'm not saying you're wrong to do that but it's just as easy to assume that the 2nd and/or 3rd options are on the table and they're holding back on an anouncement for some reason.
Fair point mate. I think they are plotting more hospitality though which is a whisper at the moment and suggests it's going to be very underwhelming. Why keep shoving in more GA+ into the existing structure if you have bigger plans you are sitting on?
At least Purslow was clear about what we were doing.
Post by: Risso on March 27, 2024, 12:20:57 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 12:23:46 PM
Blues now have an opportunity to develop the City Centre multi-purpose stadium that we probably should have been looking at. Even if we do a complete rebuild where we are, a stadium that close to the City would seem a more likely venue for major events.It does. And that's a very unpleasant thought when you consider what an utter tinpot club they are.
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
I can imagine a scenario where we aren't flavour of the month right now with key stakeholders having spent three years demanding better infrastructure to support our redevelopment and Euro 2028 etc only to then pull the plug. I think that it wasn't just us fans that were stunned by the news by all accounts.
Post by: LeeB on March 27, 2024, 12:27:45 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 27, 2024, 12:28:39 PM
There no news on the Badge, Ground, Sponsor, Kit manufacturer, or 150th Anniversary. I refuse to believe it's because we've stopped work on everything, or that it's through shit organisation etc.
My gut feeling is that they are waiting on the end of season, focus on that and what's happening on the pitch because, let's face it that's the priority.
International week always causes a vacuum that's horrible to fill which is where this sort of stuff comes from. Good on that lot down the road, they are getting on with their thing and that helps Birmingham. We will be bigger, and better and I'm confident we will all wowed at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 12:32:44 PM
*Looks at league tables, looks at clubs postions, looks at any indicator possible, history, whatever, and wonders what the fuck everyone is getting worked up about*
We were told we were redeveloping, then it was cancelled. We are told our revenue generating capacity isn't fit for purpose and it will bite us one day and stall our march up the table due to FFP. The club seem to be scaling back totally on the idea that we need a 50k stadium with all the mod cons yet loads of other clubs, even the rags, are modernising.
Some of us older ones have seen us screw up opportunities in the 1990s to really be established as not just a Big Club but a mega club and I guess that's why it's being debated.
And listen, if Mr Heck pulls a rabbit out of the hat this summer and announces that we are actually doing something big with Villa Park or a new location i will be the first to hold my hand up and say I was wrong. It's jsut the messaging has been piss poor.
Post by: Ads on March 27, 2024, 12:35:30 PM
Post by: Gareth on March 27, 2024, 12:49:32 PM
It's the poor communications that are part of the problem as you say.
The p**s poor comms are a massive problem for us…but as they don’t care about customers as there will be more suckers to take the seats at full price they don’t care about those comms.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 12:52:42 PM
It's the poor communications that are part of the problem as you say.
The p**s poor comms are a massive problem for us…but as they don’t care about customers as there will be more suckers to take the seats at full price they don’t care about those comms.
It's not long ago I was sitting in the North Stand in the championship looking up at the closed off Upper Trinity. The context has changed but the breathtaking speed with which we have lost sight of the ordinary fan since Heck arrived is still staggering.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 27, 2024, 12:54:00 PM
On the subject of the hospitality, someone sent me an ad the other day with an offer for Lower Grounds for the Wolves game. With a match ticket it was £85+vat. Through the club itself you'd pay £140+vat.Blues now have an opportunity to develop the City Centre multi-purpose stadium that we probably should have been looking at. Even if we do a complete rebuild where we are, a stadium that close to the City would seem a more likely venue for major events.
It feels like they have stolen a march on us really.
Heck seems to be pursuing a stamford bridge type blue print of keep the capacity around 40k but butcher the ground to cram in more hospitality and this is why I am so concerned that he is the wrong man at the worst possible time. Zero imagination and zero fucks given about the future beyond his stay with us.
I wonder what's going on?
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 01:00:07 PM
I wonder if we had bought that land or similar, what the feeling would be when demolishing Villa Park.
It would be heartbreaking. But if we're still there in a 43k stadium and Blues build a 50k plus mutlti purpose arena, hoovering up commercial income that could have been ours, that will all feel very Doug Ellis.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 27, 2024, 01:22:04 PM
I wonder if we had bought that land or similar, what the feeling would be when demolishing Villa Park.
It would be heartbreaking. But if we're still there in a 43k stadium and Blues build a 50k plus mutlti purpose arena, hoovering up commercial income that could have been ours, that will all feel very Doug Ellis.
And very reminiscent of the early 90s when Ellis actually pushed the boat away, never mind missing it, with his small time attitude & ManU went on to dominate for decades while we regressed after competing with them for that first Premier League title.
Heck is reminding me of Ellis all over again & I think back to that quote about his time at New York Red Bull & how Heck "did so much damage in such a short space of time with his ignorance & arrogance." Or something to that tune...
Post by: Hookeysmith on March 27, 2024, 01:30:57 PM
Quote
My gut feeling is that they are waiting on the end of season, focus on that and what's happening on the pitch because, let's face it that's the priority.
Totally agree with this - how we finish this season dictates our future more than ever.
I personally agree with Heck that to reduce our capacity next season for a couple of years if / when we have Champs league football would be a disaster.
As for a new stadium - i have known VP all my life and would be gutted to leave but if we are honest the local area is such a shit hole that i cannot see how that can not only be improved upon but also maintained.
I see there is a huge amount of land on the other side of the M6 by the Fort (i think it was a railway shunting ground previously and not aware of any plans for it now that it is levelled) where a state of the art stadium could be built. Not sure where we could move our games to for 2 years + (without the same issue of losing capacity that a VP build would cause)
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 01:34:59 PM
Still in favour of a complete rebuild elsewhere. You can make land available if needs be. More expensive, but that's what the other owners are here for ultimately. B6 is inadequate and would be which ever way you slice it and reconstitute the parts.
But if Blues get ahead and go and build a city centre arena then you'd imagine there would be significantly less willingness in the Council to facilitate a second.
Post by: Ads on March 27, 2024, 01:40:20 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 01:42:26 PM
As if the Noses have you lot rattled. I checked the BBC table and they're about to drop into the third division. And if they do get a ground to be the Darlington of the 2030s, then who gives a good fuck? We're competing for Champions League football and European trophies, with more money on our tummy next season than they get in income full stop.
No, its our current President of Business who has rattled some of us because his actions have been a bit small time and his comms have been positively amateur. And it is a fair comment to ask what the plan is as the SHA announcement narrows down one more potential avenue.
Post by: Drummond on March 27, 2024, 01:51:21 PM
As if the Noses have you lot rattled. I checked the BBC table and they're about to drop into the third division. And if they do get a ground to be the Darlington of the 2030s, then who gives a good fuck? We're competing for Champions League football and European trophies, with more money on our tummy next season than they get in income full stop.
No, its our current President of Business who has rattled some of us because his actions have been a bit small time and his comms have been positively amateur. And it is a fair comment to ask what the plan is as the SHA announcement narrows down one more potential avenue.
No, it really isn't. His actions in moving us to Adidas, Betano and increasing revenue by over £10m a year aren't sign of small time at all. He's put a stop to a plan to build a North Stand, that's not small time, because you don't know what he's planning to do instead. We have new investors, who are fucking huge, that's not small time.
He's got rid of a badge that most people didn't want (if we're being honest), that was voted in ahead of a really shit design.
He has communicated some information, and just said nothing on others, and in the modern world, patience doesn't seem to be a virtue any more, people (like you) want information when they want it, regardless of whether or not they have any right to make that demand. (I also understand a club is about fans, without them there's nothing, but in the modern world of wanting news immediately, having to wait a few weeks seems like a lifetime).
As for that lot down the road narrowing our options, you're having a fucking laugh. They are nothing in comparison to us, and they will forever be in our shadow. Stop letting them get inside your head.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 27, 2024, 02:05:30 PM
Imagine that stadium being chosen ahead of villa park for events?
I do agree about the surrounding area at villa park being pretty shit tbh
Post by: Ads on March 27, 2024, 02:08:26 PM
As if the Noses have you lot rattled. I checked the BBC table and they're about to drop into the third division. And if they do get a ground to be the Darlington of the 2030s, then who gives a good fuck? We're competing for Champions League football and European trophies, with more money on our tummy next season than they get in income full stop.
No, its our current President of Business who has rattled some of us because his actions have been a bit small time and his comms have been positively amateur. And it is a fair comment to ask what the plan is as the SHA announcement narrows down one more potential avenue.
He's got us demonstrably more sponsorship than we've ever got close to before. We're likely going to bring in quarter of a billion next year, £300m the year after. How is that small time?
I fail to see what the Noses may or more likely probably won't, do on that side. In what respect was the Wheels site ever a concern of ours and how does it impact us one iota?
Post by: Risso on March 27, 2024, 02:15:20 PM
He's put a stop to a plan to build a North Stand, that's not small time, because you don't know what he's planning to do instead. We have new investors, who are fucking huge, that's not small time.
Well, if you're taking him at his word, he's said it's not time to be building a new stand as we're not selling out the current ones. He's also categorically said there are no plans to move. Now, that may not be true, or may change over time, but that's what he's said. He's also talked about squeezing a few more seats in, and making the club shop a bit bigger. We also know he's done some really poorly executed GA+ offerings.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 02:18:40 PM
It's just people chewing the fat on a forum. It's not bed-wetting or panicking, just people chatting about how it could impact our future.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 27, 2024, 02:19:02 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 02:22:32 PM
I do wonder if they didnt do TV and the posher seats if they would sell better for capacity? When he says its not selling out i would be guessing its the posh seats that are not sellingIt's about the disappointing demand for the GA+ offering so far. The stand was due to have a lot of corporate and GA+ and would have facilitated even more in the Trinity. Heck has lost confidence that there is demand for this.
Post by: Ads on March 27, 2024, 02:24:45 PM
Post by: Gareth on March 27, 2024, 02:45:18 PM
As if the Noses have you lot rattled. I checked the BBC table and they're about to drop into the third division. And if they do get a ground to be the Darlington of the 2030s, then who gives a good fuck? We're competing for Champions League football and European trophies, with more money on our tummy next season than they get in income full stop.
No, its our current President of Business who has rattled some of us because his actions have been a bit small time and his comms have been positively amateur. And it is a fair comment to ask what the plan is as the SHA announcement narrows down one more potential avenue.
No, it really isn't. His actions in moving us to Adidas, Betano and increasing revenue by over £10m a year aren't sign of small time at all. He's put a stop to a plan to build a North Stand, that's not small time, because you don't know what he's planning to do instead. We have new investors, who are fucking huge, that's not small time.
He's got rid of a badge that most people didn't want (if we're being honest), that was voted in ahead of a really shit design.
He has communicated some information, and just said nothing on others, and in the modern world, patience doesn't seem to be a virtue any more, people (like you) want information when they want it, regardless of whether or not they have any right to make that demand. (I also understand a club is about fans, without them there's nothing, but in the modern world of wanting news immediately, having to wait a few weeks seems like a lifetime).
As for that lot down the road narrowing our options, you're having a fucking laugh. They are nothing in comparison to us, and they will forever be in our shadow. Stop letting them get inside your head.
& all they’ve done is took advantage of a skint council opportunity & bought a bit of land…million miles from building a gold plated dildodrome on it
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on March 27, 2024, 02:45:52 PM
Post by: Risso on March 27, 2024, 02:48:52 PM
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 03:29:24 PM
As if the Noses have you lot rattled. I checked the BBC table and they're about to drop into the third division. And if they do get a ground to be the Darlington of the 2030s, then who gives a good fuck? We're competing for Champions League football and European trophies, with more money on our tummy next season than they get in income full stop.
No, its our current President of Business who has rattled some of us because his actions have been a bit small time and his comms have been positively amateur. And it is a fair comment to ask what the plan is as the SHA announcement narrows down one more potential avenue.
No, it really isn't. His actions in moving us to Adidas, Betano and increasing revenue by over £10m a year aren't sign of small time at all. He's put a stop to a plan to build a North Stand, that's not small time, because you don't know what he's planning to do instead. We have new investors, who are fucking huge, that's not small time.
He's got rid of a badge that most people didn't want (if we're being honest), that was voted in ahead of a really shit design.
He has communicated some information, and just said nothing on others, and in the modern world, patience doesn't seem to be a virtue any more, people (like you) want information when they want it, regardless of whether or not they have any right to make that demand. (I also understand a club is about fans, without them there's nothing, but in the modern world of wanting news immediately, having to wait a few weeks seems like a lifetime).
As for that lot down the road narrowing our options, you're having a fucking laugh. They are nothing in comparison to us, and they will forever be in our shadow. Stop letting them get inside your head.
I have read your post 7 or 8 times and I really do not understand.
1. I couldn't give a fuck about SHA but, if Heck's masterplan is a city centre stadium it is highly unlikely two will be allowed happen now isn't? The whole argument about a new stadium was revolving around the fact that it would be a campus for all range of things that the city currently doesn't have. Well, that idea may well be just a tad less appealing now but what do I know.
2. With the greatest of respect, ordinary thick plebs like me who 'want information when they want it' did not create this situation. This situation was created when, rather abruptly and without explanation the new world class superstar American CEO that us plebs are too thick to appreciate bungled an announcement that we aren't doing the thing we spent 3 years saying we were doing. In 10-11 weeks time we were to be starting construction on taking Villa Park into the twenty-first century and now we aren't. That's not thickos like me being impatient for news, that's a gaping hole in our whole mid-term strategy to compete and grow.
Anyway, what do I know. I'm not clever enough to hike prices 20% for facilities that have been crying out for investment.
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on March 27, 2024, 03:30:11 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 27, 2024, 03:35:04 PM
Do I need to dust off a bedsheet?
To replace the sodden ones of some people on here?
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 03:46:53 PM
What's the point of a forum if people can't chat about the Villa and things that may impact on the Villa? Do you go on politics threads and call people bedwetters for having an opinion?Do I need to dust off a bedsheet?
To replace the sodden ones of some people on here?
Post by: LeeB on March 27, 2024, 03:49:57 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 03:52:00 PM
There's chatting, then there's getting your knickers in a twist because some hedge fund associated with a terminally useless local team have agreed to buy some wasteland.And then there's chatting about what it could mean for Villa if they go ahead and build a stadium on land they have bought to build a stadium on.
Post by: LeeB on March 27, 2024, 03:55:52 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 03:58:47 PM
May as well chat about the impact of a alien invasion wiping out the executive class and it's subsequent on demand for our corporate packages for all the likelihood of it becoming a reality.So you think them building a stadium on land they appear to have bought for building a stadium is as unlikely as an alien invasion?
Post by: paul_e on March 27, 2024, 04:00:39 PM
QuoteMy gut feeling is that they are waiting on the end of season, focus on that and what's happening on the pitch because, let's face it that's the priority.
Totally agree with this - how we finish this season dictates our future more than ever.
I personally agree with Heck that to reduce our capacity next season for a couple of years if / when we have Champs league football would be a disaster.
As for a new stadium - i have known VP all my life and would be gutted to leave but if we are honest the local area is such a shit hole that i cannot see how that can not only be improved upon but also maintained.
I see there is a huge amount of land on the other side of the M6 by the Fort (i think it was a railway shunting ground previously and not aware of any plans for it now that it is levelled) where a state of the art stadium could be built. Not sure where we could move our games to for 2 years + (without the same issue of losing capacity that a VP build would cause)
That's the old LDV site and current unused HS2 site. Not all of it is available but what is would still be enough for a huge complex. The difficulty is that it's hemmed in by rail, motorway and canal on 2 sides so finding an effective transport system to get people in and out quickly would be tough and potentially would push a lot of traffic onto Bromford Lane and Ward End Lane, both of which are already pretty shit. As I said earlier though, a good ground right there would look absolutely fucking amazing from the M6 (and HS2), I'm think the same kinda views you get of the Johan Cryuff Arena from the train through Amsterdam. We wouldn't be in Aston anymore though.
Post by: LeeB on March 27, 2024, 04:03:07 PM
May as well chat about the impact of a alien invasion wiping out the executive class and it's subsequent on demand for our corporate packages for all the likelihood of it becoming a reality.So you think them building a stadium on land they appear to have bought for building a stadium is as unlikely as an alien invasion?
We're talking about Birmingham City right?
Yes.
I don't know the ratio but for every new proposed stadium the number that actually get built is miniscule (sure I read a piece about it not so long back).
They haven't got any plans or designs or approvals as far as I'm aware, they've just bought a site, like Herbert used to do from time to time.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 27, 2024, 04:38:21 PM
QuoteMy gut feeling is that they are waiting on the end of season, focus on that and what's happening on the pitch because, let's face it that's the priority.
Totally agree with this - how we finish this season dictates our future more than ever.
I personally agree with Heck that to reduce our capacity next season for a couple of years if / when we have Champs league football would be a disaster.
As for a new stadium - i have known VP all my life and would be gutted to leave but if we are honest the local area is such a shit hole that i cannot see how that can not only be improved upon but also maintained.
I see there is a huge amount of land on the other side of the M6 by the Fort (i think it was a railway shunting ground previously and not aware of any plans for it now that it is levelled) where a state of the art stadium could be built. Not sure where we could move our games to for 2 years + (without the same issue of losing capacity that a VP build would cause)
That's the old LDV site and current unused HS2 site. Not all of it is available but what is would still be enough for a huge complex. The difficulty is that it's hemmed in by rail, motorway and canal on 2 sides so finding an effective transport system to get people in and out quickly would be tough and potentially would push a lot of traffic onto Bromford Lane and Ward End Lane, both of which are already pretty shit. As I said earlier though, a good ground right there would look absolutely fucking amazing from the M6 (and HS2), I'm think the same kinda views you get of the Johan Cryuff Arena from the train through Amsterdam. We wouldn't be in Aston anymore though.
I may be wrong but when I was looking at the HS2 plans, most of that land appeared to be earmarked for railway sidings. I did wonder if the land where the concrete factory is might become available after HS2 is completed. I also wondered about the StarCity site, its been losing money for years.
Post by: The Edge on March 27, 2024, 06:00:34 PM
The old LDV site is completely taken up by HS2 development and a massive state of the art Tarmac producing factory.QuoteMy gut feeling is that they are waiting on the end of season, focus on that and what's happening on the pitch because, let's face it that's the priority.
Totally agree with this - how we finish this season dictates our future more than ever.
I personally agree with Heck that to reduce our capacity next season for a couple of years if / when we have Champs league football would be a disaster.
As for a new stadium - i have known VP all my life and would be gutted to leave but if we are honest the local area is such a shit hole that i cannot see how that can not only be improved upon but also maintained.
I see there is a huge amount of land on the other side of the M6 by the Fort (i think it was a railway shunting ground previously and not aware of any plans for it now that it is levelled) where a state of the art stadium could be built. Not sure where we could move our games to for 2 years + (without the same issue of losing capacity that a VP build would cause)
That's the old LDV site and current unused HS2 site. Not all of it is available but what is would still be enough for a huge complex. The difficulty is that it's hemmed in by rail, motorway and canal on 2 sides so finding an effective transport system to get people in and out quickly would be tough and potentially would push a lot of traffic onto Bromford Lane and Ward End Lane, both of which are already pretty shit. As I said earlier though, a good ground right there would look absolutely fucking amazing from the M6 (and HS2), I'm think the same kinda views you get of the Johan Cryuff Arena from the train through Amsterdam. We wouldn't be in Aston anymore though.
I may be wrong but when I was looking at the HS2 plans, most of that land appeared to be earmarked for railway sidings. I did wonder if the land where the concrete factory is might become available after HS2 is completed. I also wondered about the StarCity site, its been losing money for years.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 27, 2024, 06:53:14 PM
I couldn't care less what Blues do or don't do. It's going to take years to develop that site, and next year they may well be playing in the 3rd division. I just want us to be the very best we can be, and to be that a 42,000 capacity stadium isn't going to cut it. I'd prefer a brand new stadium, but failing that a major redevelopment of Villa Park. The worst option would be to just do nothing. Until we hear anything to the contrary, that appears to be what we're doing.
This
Post by: London Villan on March 27, 2024, 07:06:31 PM
Post by: The Edge on March 27, 2024, 07:13:28 PM
HS2 have released a massive chunk of land at washwood heath.Where? When you drive down Heartlands bypass you can see right across the old LDV site and it's packed with cranes and heavy equipment. There doesn't look to be any spare land.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 27, 2024, 07:15:51 PM
It's pretty simple really ADS. You have talked at length about the need for a new stadium and the commercial opportunities that brings. IF Blues get ahead and develop that City Centre arena, then it may become harder for us to do so and it will certainly be harder for us to secure the associated commercial opportunities you might have expected to come with it. So it's not about being rattled by Blues the football team, it's about saying that them securing an opportunity like this could ultimately be to our detriment.
I don't get that for a nanosecond.
We were never, ever going to be buying land and building a stadium in that part of Birmingham, because
1. That's their 'part' of town
2. It's still a shit hole, just a different shit hole.
3. It'd be way too near their current ground, and nobody, after the pandemic experience, wants to go back to wearing masks to prevent catching a horrific disease by being exposed to the air around there.
I stand by my thought we will move somewhere different, but as ever Small Heath and what they do have zero relevance to what we go for.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 27, 2024, 07:18:04 PM
QuoteMy gut feeling is that they are waiting on the end of season, focus on that and what's happening on the pitch because, let's face it that's the priority.
Totally agree with this - how we finish this season dictates our future more than ever.
I personally agree with Heck that to reduce our capacity next season for a couple of years if / when we have Champs league football would be a disaster.
As for a new stadium - i have known VP all my life and would be gutted to leave but if we are honest the local area is such a shit hole that i cannot see how that can not only be improved upon but also maintained.
I see there is a huge amount of land on the other side of the M6 by the Fort (i think it was a railway shunting ground previously and not aware of any plans for it now that it is levelled) where a state of the art stadium could be built. Not sure where we could move our games to for 2 years + (without the same issue of losing capacity that a VP build would cause)
That's the old LDV site and current unused HS2 site. Not all of it is available but what is would still be enough for a huge complex. The difficulty is that it's hemmed in by rail, motorway and canal on 2 sides so finding an effective transport system to get people in and out quickly would be tough and potentially would push a lot of traffic onto Bromford Lane and Ward End Lane, both of which are already pretty shit. As I said earlier though, a good ground right there would look absolutely fucking amazing from the M6 (and HS2), I'm think the same kinda views you get of the Johan Cryuff Arena from the train through Amsterdam. We wouldn't be in Aston anymore though.
Again, though, swapping a run down unappealing area with a transport problem for another one with the same problem, only a teeny bit more land at best.
I don't see the point in swapping one set of problems for a similar set elsewhere, and if we're leaving Aston, it needs to be in the city centre, perhaps north side of as a nod to Aston, but it needs to be somehting which is fundamentally miles better than Villa Park, to justify the emotional turmoil in moving.
Post by: London Villan on March 27, 2024, 07:36:11 PM
Post by: Beard82 on March 27, 2024, 07:44:54 PM
I would love us to stay where we are for as long as it was an option. North Stand redevelopment looked right to me - and I get the idea of delaying that. If we can establish ourselves as European regulars.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 27, 2024, 07:50:04 PM
The point isn't that we should have got that site. The point is, if indeed they do go ahead and develop it then I imagine it will be harder for us in the future to secure funding, partnerships etc with the BCC for a second City Centre stadium because the financial upsides aren't really as significant for them as there will already be a new stadium facility in the City.It's pretty simple really ADS. You have talked at length about the need for a new stadium and the commercial opportunities that brings. IF Blues get ahead and develop that City Centre arena, then it may become harder for us to do so and it will certainly be harder for us to secure the associated commercial opportunities you might have expected to come with it. So it's not about being rattled by Blues the football team, it's about saying that them securing an opportunity like this could ultimately be to our detriment.
I don't get that for a nanosecond.
We were never, ever going to be buying land and building a stadium in that part of Birmingham, because
1. That's their 'part' of town
2. It's still a shit hole, just a different shit hole.
3. It'd be way too near their current ground, and nobody, after the pandemic experience, wants to go back to wearing masks to prevent catching a horrific disease by being exposed to the air around there.
I stand by my thought we will move somewhere different, but as ever Small Heath and what they do have zero relevance to what we go for.
I may be entirely wrong, but my guess is that if there is hypothetically a significant stadium complex progressing in the City, there will just be far less appetite to work on a second - whether that's transport infrastructure, CPO's, planning etc. Certainly, with two stadiums, there's less opportunity for gigs, internationals and other alternative uses (I appreciate this will be impacted by the respective sizes but all things being equal)
So it's not bedwetting, it's just chatting about how IF they did go ahead and build a significant stadium before us, it could be to our detriment.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 08:29:01 PM
The USP of a new stadium would have to be that it does all the bells and whistles on a scale we can't at Villa Park and that it become an amenity for the wider city.
If they are on that already then it immediately puts a question mark over the point of us doing the same.
Now ultimately I hope we stay at Villa Park and the delay in redevelopment is somehow explained in summer as some seem to be hinting.
But the point stands. If we have postponed redevelopment for what seems like the third or fourth time, because we were seriously considering a new multi-purpose stadium, then we do so with less of a unique selling point than we would have had if we had gone with this plan on day one three years ago.
Post by: Villan82 on March 27, 2024, 08:31:22 PM
One thing I think is important is the club do whats right for the club. I cant see FFP being in place in 5 years - so it would be rubbish to do something thats good for FFP when in 50 years no one will remember it - but will be living with the decisions that were driven by it.
I would love us to stay where we are for as long as it was an option. North Stand redevelopment looked right to me - and I get the idea of delaying that. If we can establish ourselves as European regulars.
I agree with every word except the bit in bold. It should have been done yesterday as far as I am concerned. We have seen loads of clubs, including our own, with the cranes up and new stands being built during eras where things were going well on the pitch.
What is the point in waiting for us to fall away again? Nothing symbolises a club's forward momentum like a big monster of a new stand rising up out of the ground.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 27, 2024, 08:59:05 PM
The point isn't that we should have got that site. The point is, if indeed they do go ahead and develop it then I imagine it will be harder for us in the future to secure funding, partnerships etc with the BCC for a second City Centre stadium because the financial upsides aren't really as significant for them as there will already be a new stadium facility in the City.It's pretty simple really ADS. You have talked at length about the need for a new stadium and the commercial opportunities that brings. IF Blues get ahead and develop that City Centre arena, then it may become harder for us to do so and it will certainly be harder for us to secure the associated commercial opportunities you might have expected to come with it. So it's not about being rattled by Blues the football team, it's about saying that them securing an opportunity like this could ultimately be to our detriment.
I don't get that for a nanosecond.
We were never, ever going to be buying land and building a stadium in that part of Birmingham, because
1. That's their 'part' of town
2. It's still a shit hole, just a different shit hole.
3. It'd be way too near their current ground, and nobody, after the pandemic experience, wants to go back to wearing masks to prevent catching a horrific disease by being exposed to the air around there.
I stand by my thought we will move somewhere different, but as ever Small Heath and what they do have zero relevance to what we go for.
I may be entirely wrong, but my guess is that if there is hypothetically a significant stadium complex progressing in the City, there will just be far less appetite to work on a second - whether that's transport infrastructure, CPO's, planning etc. Certainly, with two stadiums, there's less opportunity for gigs, internationals and other alternative uses (I appreciate this will be impacted by the respective sizes but all things being equal)
So it's not bedwetting, it's just chatting about how IF they did go ahead and build a significant stadium before us, it could be to our detriment.
I didn't say it was bedwetting.
However, the BCC funding thing is a total red herring - they're not going to have the money to fund orchestras, museums and libraries pretty soon, let alone a stadium.
They'll have zero input for Small Heath or for us.
Post by: itmustbe_it is! on March 27, 2024, 09:15:04 PM
I get how it's probably the 'sensible" thing, it must be because almost everyone else has done it who plays regularly at the level we aspire to, I just hate the idea, completely and utterly. For the same reason there are so many nostalgia posts on here about the old Holte end etc. It's about tradition and memories . I get that that butters no parsnips as they used to say, but that's how I feel.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 27, 2024, 09:34:23 PM
If we move from VP, I'd probably be done. Not hyperbole or drama, just so much of going to football is about doing what I've always done, since the late 70s, initially with my dad, then with my mates, now with my own family. It's much more important to me than how good the food is or how long I have to queue for a beer.Same here.
I get how it's probably the 'sensible" thing, it must be because almost everyone else has done it who plays regularly at the level we aspire to, I just hate the idea, completely and utterly. For the same reason there are so many nostalgia posts on here about the old Holte end etc. It's about tradition and memories . I get that that butters no parsnips as they used to say, but that's how I feel.
It’s about where my ancestors have been going for generations, it’s where I have taken my kids so they know about the history.
It won’t ever be the same , if it’s not Villa Park.
Post by: FatSam on March 27, 2024, 09:43:06 PM
Now ultimately I hope we stay at Villa ParkDo you? Why didn’t you mention it before? 😉
Post by: Beard82 on March 27, 2024, 09:50:54 PM
If we move from VP, I'd probably be done. Not hyperbole or drama, just so much of going to football is about doing what I've always done, since the late 70s, initially with my dad, then with my mates, now with my own family. It's much more important to me than how good the food is or how long I have to queue for a beer.For me the minute football starts being sensible - we might as well give up
I get how it's probably the 'sensible" thing, it must be because almost everyone else has done it who plays regularly at the level we aspire to, I just hate the idea, completely and utterly. For the same reason there are so many nostalgia posts on here about the old Holte end etc. It's about tradition and memories . I get that that butters no parsnips as they used to say, but that's how I feel.
Post by: eamonn on March 27, 2024, 09:54:29 PM
Do I need to dust off a bedsheet?
To replace the sodden ones of some people on here?
Ah, Leighton, one of H&V's more famous sons, on account of his orange sheet with the infamous "We're not fickle. We just don't like you" black-inked zinger aimed at Dolly O'Dreary circa 2005/06 and caught by the TV cameras..
Post by: tomd2103 on March 27, 2024, 11:36:01 PM
Yes it would be embarrassing if a small shit club like blose had a newer and bigger stadium than villa park (even if they will never fill it)
Imagine that stadium being chosen ahead of villa park for events?
I do agree about the surrounding area at villa park being pretty shit tbh
Have you been to the area around that Wheels site?
Post by: rob_bridge on March 28, 2024, 07:02:22 AM
Post by: Rigadon on March 28, 2024, 07:24:35 AM
If we move from VP, I'd probably be done. Not hyperbole or drama, just so much of going to football is about doing what I've always done, since the late 70s, initially with my dad, then with my mates, now with my own family. It's much more important to me than how good the food is or how long I have to queue for a beer.Same here.
I get how it's probably the 'sensible" thing, it must be because almost everyone else has done it who plays regularly at the level we aspire to, I just hate the idea, completely and utterly. For the same reason there are so many nostalgia posts on here about the old Holte end etc. It's about tradition and memories . I get that that butters no parsnips as they used to say, but that's how I feel.
It’s about where my ancestors have been going for generations, it’s where I have taken my kids so they know about the history.
It won’t ever be the same , if it’s not Villa Park.
I completely get this. I’m undecided on it and change my mind every time this thread gets a bump. The thing is, I’d have been in the totally against camp a few months ago. It feels like, certainly under the FFP rules as they are, that if we want to consistently compete where we are now, we will need to move. If heritage is more important, I get that point of view. I’m probably more in favour of moving than staying because I want to see the villa play and win at the highest level possible.
Post by: algy on March 28, 2024, 07:51:30 AM
Drummond's last few posts on here have absolutely nailed it.As if the Noses have you lot rattled. I checked the BBC table and they're about to drop into the third division. And if they do get a ground to be the Darlington of the 2030s, then who gives a good fuck? We're competing for Champions League football and European trophies, with more money on our tummy next season than they get in income full stop.
No, its our current President of Business who has rattled some of us because his actions have been a bit small time and his comms have been positively amateur. And it is a fair comment to ask what the plan is as the SHA announcement narrows down one more potential avenue.
No, it really isn't. His actions in moving us to Adidas, Betano and increasing revenue by over £10m a year aren't sign of small time at all. He's put a stop to a plan to build a North Stand, that's not small time, because you don't know what he's planning to do instead. We have new investors, who are fucking huge, that's not small time.
He's got rid of a badge that most people didn't want (if we're being honest), that was voted in ahead of a really shit design.
He has communicated some information, and just said nothing on others, and in the modern world, patience doesn't seem to be a virtue any more, people (like you) want information when they want it, regardless of whether or not they have any right to make that demand. (I also understand a club is about fans, without them there's nothing, but in the modern world of wanting news immediately, having to wait a few weeks seems like a lifetime).
As for that lot down the road narrowing our options, you're having a fucking laugh. They are nothing in comparison to us, and they will forever be in our shadow. Stop letting them get inside your head.
I couldn't give a toss what Small Heath do, it doesn't affect us as we're more likely to be playing in the Champions League next season and they're more likely to be having a local derby against Burton Albion.
Communication, I'd just be patient. The stuff we HAVE announced - Castore to Adidas, BK8 to Betano, bringing in £100m of investment from a company primarily focussed on building & operating huge stadia - has been pretty decent. I'm not going to worry about stuff we haven't announced just yet.
Post by: Duncan Shaw on March 28, 2024, 08:31:47 AM
They're not building in the city centre if they even build anything at all. If by some miracle, the biggest joke in the history of football do manage to cobble together a stadium, its hardly going to be Everton or Spurs is it for a 2nd division side that pulls 18k on a good day. If we want to build something, we will build it.This is what I think too, how is anyone describing that site as being in the city centre?
Post by: cdward on March 28, 2024, 08:44:03 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on March 28, 2024, 08:48:04 AM
Post by: Chris Smith on March 28, 2024, 08:58:35 AM
Tbh, even with all of this chat about moving, my guess would be it's not something that we're even considering. And if we do spend money doing a bit of infilling, I don't think we're seriously considering the Noth Stand right now either - at least for a few years. But it does give us something to discuss during quiet periods. I know we've had investment, but I just think Heck has got cold feet.
Or more probably he wants the new stand to be associated with his name rather than pursuing a project instigated by his predecessor.
Post by: Nev on March 28, 2024, 09:05:47 AM
They're not building in the city centre if they even build anything at all. If by some miracle, the biggest joke in the history of football do manage to cobble together a stadium, its hardly going to be Everton or Spurs is it for a 2nd division side that pulls 18k on a good day. If we want to build something, we will build it.This is what I think too, how is anyone describing that site as being in the city centre?
The tram will extend to Digbeth (one day) but it's still a bit of walk so it is a misnomer. And the idea that suddenly there will be a long list of non-football events taking place there is fanciful in the extreme. Large, stadium based outdoor gigs are sporadic in Brum and I can't think of anything else that would use a new stadium, and that includes us building one. We seem to be more proactive as far as gigs are concerned lately and the Wolfs have one now and again but the Motor Cross last summer was a flop in terms of ticket sales I believe. Manchester host lots of big concerts at the 115 Stadium and the cricket ground indicating that bands will do London to cover the South and Cotton Town to cover the North, leaving the Midlands out.
I take the same view of the Rags owners purchase of the ground as I did their purchase of the club, they are in it for what they can get out of it, not what they can put in and the Wheels site will sold on again or redeveloped for housing or commerce.
Post by: The Edge on March 28, 2024, 09:14:26 AM
He has stifled the development of the club and managed to stifle the feelgood factor among the fans who are on the very real waiting list for season tickets which I am on. If he did that for his own personal vanity he needs booting all the way from Villa Park to Aston Station with a one way ticket to fuck off town. I doubt very much our brilliant owners would allow that but his appointment seems like a very bad idea at this point. As others have alluded to the investment from Comcast points to something huge happening. If so Mr Heck needs to be front and centre to make the announcement because up to now everything has said and done has been disastrous.Tbh, even with all of this chat about moving, my guess would be it's not something that we're even considering. And if we do spend money doing a bit of infilling, I don't think we're seriously considering the Noth Stand right now either - at least for a few years. But it does give us something to discuss during quiet periods. I know we've had investment, but I just think Heck has got cold feet.
Or more probably he wants the new stand to be associated with his name rather than pursuing a project instigated by his predecessor.
Post by: chrisw1 on March 28, 2024, 09:32:44 AM
Post by: The Edge on March 28, 2024, 09:47:46 AM
As for the waiting list, hasn't it been confirmed that only a very small percentage of people on it have bought a match ticket in the last few years? So whilst I believe 100% that it's real, I'm not sure how many would actually put their money down when their turn comes.In my case the reason I am on the list is because finally after uni and work commitments me and my sons wanted to get season tickets in the new North Stand as we almost never manage to sit together on match days. I was really looking forward to us having 3 seats next to each other so the blasé announced by Mr Heck to delay the new stand went down like a lead balloon with us.
Post by: The Edge on March 28, 2024, 09:55:00 AM
The councils "Big City Plan" involves extending Central Birmingham as far as Lawley middleway. Large developments are already happening including The Glassworks Locks which is going to include hotels bars and restaurants. All that will be a few minutes walk from where small heath have bought the wheels land.They're not building in the city centre if they even build anything at all. If by some miracle, the biggest joke in the history of football do manage to cobble together a stadium, its hardly going to be Everton or Spurs is it for a 2nd division side that pulls 18k on a good day. If we want to build something, we will build it.This is what I think too, how is anyone describing that site as being in the city centre?
Post by: Demitri_C on March 28, 2024, 10:12:06 AM
The councils "Big City Plan" involves extending Central Birmingham as far as Lawley middleway. Large developments are already happening including The Glassworks Locks which is going to include hotels bars and restaurants. All that will be a few minutes walk from where small heath have bought the wheels land.They're not building in the city centre if they even build anything at all. If by some miracle, the biggest joke in the history of football do manage to cobble together a stadium, its hardly going to be Everton or Spurs is it for a 2nd division side that pulls 18k on a good day. If we want to build something, we will build it.This is what I think too, how is anyone describing that site as being in the city centre?
If thats the case we may have missed a trick here. But i simply dont think its gonna benefit blose long term as the owners will sell it all on for big profits later and nkt give it to the club.
Post by: The Edge on March 28, 2024, 10:15:13 AM
Let's hope so.The councils "Big City Plan" involves extending Central Birmingham as far as Lawley middleway. Large developments are already happening including The Glassworks Locks which is going to include hotels bars and restaurants. All that will be a few minutes walk from where small heath have bought the wheels land.They're not building in the city centre if they even build anything at all. If by some miracle, the biggest joke in the history of football do manage to cobble together a stadium, its hardly going to be Everton or Spurs is it for a 2nd division side that pulls 18k on a good day. If we want to build something, we will build it.This is what I think too, how is anyone describing that site as being in the city centre?
If thats the case we may have missed a trick here. But i simply dont think its gonna benefit blose long term as the owners will sell it all on for big profits later and nkt give it to the club.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 28, 2024, 10:16:46 AM
Post by: Duncan Shaw on March 28, 2024, 10:36:15 AM
Post by: Nev on March 28, 2024, 11:04:06 AM
We should blow everyone out of the water for the Smithfield festival site and be done with it!
That would be ideal but it's going for commercial development and I think it's already sorted.
Post by: Duncan Shaw on March 28, 2024, 11:19:49 AM
We should blow everyone out of the water for the Smithfield festival site and be done with it!
That would be ideal but it's going for commercial development and I think it's already sorted.
Yeah I was being optimistic! Not passed planning yet, so a late mega billions offer to a skint council!!
Post by: FatSam on March 28, 2024, 11:23:15 AM
Lendlease are delivering that in partnership with the council. I don’t think they could be described as skint!We should blow everyone out of the water for the Smithfield festival site and be done with it!
That would be ideal but it's going for commercial development and I think it's already sorted.
Yeah I was being optimistic! Not passed planning yet, so a late mega billions offer to a skint council!!
Post by: astonvilla82 on March 28, 2024, 01:15:24 PM
Yes you are right,it was in the local paper and after a few objections regarding some ancient pool?,it was revised and given council approvalWe should blow everyone out of the water for the Smithfield festival site and be done with it!
That would be ideal but it's going for commercial development and I think it's already sorted.
Post by: eamonn on March 28, 2024, 01:21:26 PM
How do i get my "paver" back if we move?
Did you get your share cert from Doug? Randy made it worthless.
Post by: Risso on March 28, 2024, 02:00:06 PM
As for the waiting list, hasn't it been confirmed that only a very small percentage of people on it have bought a match ticket in the last few years? So whilst I believe 100% that it's real, I'm not sure how many would actually put their money down when their turn comes.
There's a huge difference between asking somebody "do you want a season ticket when the time comes?" and asking "do you want a ticket for X game" especially when the few tickets they have left unsold are offered with little or no notice.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 28, 2024, 02:01:05 PM
As for the waiting list, hasn't it been confirmed that only a very small percentage of people on it have bought a match ticket in the last few years? So whilst I believe 100% that it's real, I'm not sure how many would actually put their money down when their turn comes.
No idea. The only person I know gave up season ticket after Covid season due to birth of his daughter. When I chatted to him last summer he had immediately rejoined the list im Aug 2020. 3 years later)some 10k were ahead of him
Post by: Somniloquism on March 28, 2024, 06:44:10 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue and we still have the two stations and close to Spaghetti etc.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 28, 2024, 06:48:48 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
Post by: Somniloquism on March 28, 2024, 06:50:22 PM
The council have taken years to build a tram line from bull street to dale end, roughly 300m metres. I wouldn't rely on any so called council developments. Especially now they are uberskint.
Not the council is it? Though the trams were Centro and Combined Authority. I noticed today the stop at the top of the Broad street branch outside of Morrisons had been closed off with building material. So I don't know if the trams are going up there at the moment.
Post by: LeeB on March 28, 2024, 06:59:38 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 28, 2024, 07:02:54 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
And me.
You are genuinely the first person I've ever heard express the same confusion.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 28, 2024, 07:17:32 PM
The council have taken years to build a tram line from bull street to dale end, roughly 300m metres. I wouldn't rely on any so called council developments. Especially now they are uberskint.
I’m not sure the tram has much to do with the council, permission aside, especially financially.
Post by: The Edge on March 28, 2024, 09:45:14 PM
It would be worth buying all the businesses then flattening them to build a new stadium with the address Villa Park, Electric Avenue, B6. The walk out tune would be a done deal. Forever.The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
And me.
You are genuinely the first person I've ever heard express the same confusion.
Post by: Risso on March 28, 2024, 09:49:37 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
And me.
You are genuinely the first person I've ever heard express the same confusion.
As the kids say, I was today years old when I found out it wasn't the street in Brum.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 28, 2024, 10:11:07 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on March 28, 2024, 10:21:35 PM
The council have taken years to build a tram line from bull street to dale end, roughly 300m metres. I wouldn't rely on any so called council developments. Especially now they are uberskint.
I’m not sure the tram has much to do with the council, permission aside, especially financially.
Out of interest who is responsible for the building/planning? It's shockingly poor.
Post by: AV82EC on March 28, 2024, 10:36:39 PM
The council have taken years to build a tram line from bull street to dale end, roughly 300m metres. I wouldn't rely on any so called council developments. Especially now they are uberskint.
I’m not sure the tram has much to do with the council, permission aside, especially financially.
Out of interest who is responsible for the building/planning? It's shockingly poor.
The Midlands Metro Alliance are building it with various design, construction organisations as part of it. Ultimately it’s Street (WMCA) who’s responsible for getting it built by the above and then running it via TfWM.
Post by: Chris Harte on March 29, 2024, 07:52:57 AM
I still think the whole thing needs ripping up and retarmacing so they can run a fleet of buses on it. It seems to be broken more often than it isn't.The council have taken years to build a tram line from bull street to dale end, roughly 300m metres. I wouldn't rely on any so called council developments. Especially now they are uberskint.
I’m not sure the tram has much to do with the council, permission aside, especially financially.
Out of interest who is responsible for the building/planning? It's shockingly poor.
The Midlands Metro Alliance are building it with various design, construction organisations as part of it. Ultimately it’s Street (WMCA) who’s responsible for getting it built by the above and then running it via TfWM.
Anyway, that was really a post for elsewhere.
Post by: Chico Hamilton III on March 29, 2024, 09:14:08 AM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I sing that to my son every time we walk past it (usually when we’ve parked at Star City) and he always rolls his eyes at me, no doubt thinking I’m an absolute cock.
Post by: oldtimernow on March 29, 2024, 09:47:59 AM
It would be worth buying all the businesses then flattening them to build a new stadium with the address Villa Park, Electric Avenue, B6. The walk out tune would be a done deal. Forever.The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
And me.
You are genuinely the first person I've ever heard express the same confusion.
would be quite fitting for my Dad , HEITS, he used to work at GEC on Electric Avenue!
Post by: The Edge on March 29, 2024, 09:55:00 AM
After years of deliberation (mostly on here) I think we have a winner. Electric Avenue by Eddie Grant would be a great walk out tune and also fitting.It would be worth buying all the businesses then flattening them to build a new stadium with the address Villa Park, Electric Avenue, B6. The walk out tune would be a done deal. Forever.The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
And me.
You are genuinely the first person I've ever heard express the same confusion.
would be quite fitting for my Dad , HEITS, he used to work at GEC on Electric Avenue!
Post by: thick_mike on March 29, 2024, 10:19:47 AM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I sing that to my son every time we walk past it (usually when we’ve parked at Star City) and he always rolls his eyes at me, no doubt thinking I’m an absolute cock.
I bet that makes the moment twice as sweet.
Post by: eamonn on March 30, 2024, 12:29:16 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
Past the Leisure Centre, left at the lights.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 30, 2024, 12:35:37 PM
Post by: Risso on March 30, 2024, 12:44:44 PM
Post by: The Edge on March 30, 2024, 01:34:27 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 30, 2024, 02:51:41 PM
These last two quotes have left me confused. Must be an age thing.
Probably from a Pulp song as Risso chimed in. If it's Suede, Eamonn will chime in, and if it's Metallica, I will.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 30, 2024, 03:30:13 PM
The city centre side of the ring road, off Summer Lane. Loads of cpo’s would be needed though.
Too much of an incline. If we are going to do that, might as well just buy all the land off Electric Avenue
We could rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'd make it higher.
*winks at internal jukeboxes*
I was at least 15 before I realised that was about Brixton and not the road before the Leisure Centre.
Past the Leisure Centre, left at the lights.
Depends which way you’re going.
*o level geography face *
Post by: The Edge on March 30, 2024, 03:37:11 PM
Thanks BVThese last two quotes have left me confused. Must be an age thing.
Probably from a Pulp song as Risso chimed in. If it's Suede, Eamonn will chime in, and if it's Metallica, I will.
Post by: Mister E on March 31, 2024, 07:38:17 AM
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 31, 2024, 08:36:30 AM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:Don’t worry, Heck is going to fix it with his new megastore.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
He announced this the day he cancelled the North Stand.
Post by: pablo_picasso on March 31, 2024, 10:53:10 AM
Maybe we should hire their whatever Chris Hecks business title is...
Post by: itbrvilla on March 31, 2024, 11:01:13 AM
How the fuck are Leeds almost double ours?They probably get served quicker at the bar...
Maybe we should hire their whatever Chris Hecks business title is...
Post by: tomd2103 on March 31, 2024, 11:06:02 AM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
To be fair, that data is nearly two years old now, so might have changed. Would be interesting to see the breakdown of that spend and why Leeds are in the position they are in.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 11:06:57 AM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Far be it for me to question accounts-skimmer and Football Insider advisor Keiran Maguire, but why is he posting data on 2021-22 when the accounts of 2022-23 are available? Also, if we’ve averaged only £18 per match per fan, is this excluding ticket price? I’m paying more than £18 a game…
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 11:11:43 AM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 31, 2024, 11:19:48 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 31, 2024, 11:28:19 AM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Far be it for me to question accounts-skimmer and Football Insider advisor Keiran Maguire, but why is he posting data on 2021-22 when the accounts of 2022-23 are available? Also, if we’ve averaged only £18 per match per fan, is this excluding ticket price? I’m paying more than £18 a game…
Yes, I’ve pointed out the inaccuracy of his figures on here before and been told in no uncertain terms that he is the all-seeing eye.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 11:33:17 AM
So it’s not matchday revenue at all. But it is still surprisingly low, even taking into account VAT, away tickets capped at £30, and lower priced cup tickets…
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 11:35:26 AM
Okay, looking at our accounts he’s dividing gate receipts by attendance.
So it’s not matchday revenue at all. But it is still surprisingly low, even taking into account VAT, away tickets capped at £30, and lower priced cup tickets…
He's not doing anything - he's taking the numbers from the accounts.
These figures shouldn't really surprise anyone, we've had piss poor economic performance for years now.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 11:43:55 AM
Gate receipts - 18.8m
£940,000 per match
Assume 40k each match (it prob works out as more than that, but I can't be arsed)
£23.5 per person per match.
Then take away the share of that gate revenue that goes to the away team, and it's less than that - and these figures are in a year which saw an uplift of 17% in gate money on the season before.
For all of us paying 60 quid a ticket, there are plenty paying way, way less than that.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 31, 2024, 11:45:58 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 11:49:02 AM
Post by: eamonn on March 31, 2024, 11:54:45 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 11:56:31 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 11:58:00 AM
Okay, looking at our accounts he’s dividing gate receipts by attendance.
So it’s not matchday revenue at all. But it is still surprisingly low, even taking into account VAT, away tickets capped at £30, and lower priced cup tickets…
He's not doing anything - he's taking the numbers from the accounts.
These figures shouldn't really surprise anyone, we've had piss poor economic performance for years now.
Erm… right? You mean, what I said he’d done? ;D
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 12:00:54 PM
Okay, looking at our accounts he’s dividing gate receipts by attendance.
So it’s not matchday revenue at all. But it is still surprisingly low, even taking into account VAT, away tickets capped at £30, and lower priced cup tickets…
He's not doing anything - he's taking the numbers from the accounts.
These figures shouldn't really surprise anyone, we've had piss poor economic performance for years now.
Erm… right? You mean, what I said he’d done? ;D
How's it not matchday revenue (per fan), then? That's the bit I don't get. It looks like pretty straightforward maths to me? Unless I am missing something.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 12:01:56 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 12:02:58 PM
Okay, looking at our accounts he’s dividing gate receipts by attendance.
So it’s not matchday revenue at all. But it is still surprisingly low, even taking into account VAT, away tickets capped at £30, and lower priced cup tickets…
He's not doing anything - he's taking the numbers from the accounts.
These figures shouldn't really surprise anyone, we've had piss poor economic performance for years now.
Erm… right? You mean, what I said he’d done? ;D
How's it not matchday revenue (per fan), then? That's the bit I don't get. It looks like pretty straightforward maths to me? Unless I am missing something.
It doesn’t include food or programmes or corporate spend, it’s ticket sales, which is just a proportion of matchday revenue.
They’re reported separately in the accounts, but lumped in with commercial sponsorship.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 12:06:10 PM
Okay, looking at our accounts he’s dividing gate receipts by attendance.
So it’s not matchday revenue at all. But it is still surprisingly low, even taking into account VAT, away tickets capped at £30, and lower priced cup tickets…
He's not doing anything - he's taking the numbers from the accounts.
These figures shouldn't really surprise anyone, we've had piss poor economic performance for years now.
Erm… right? You mean, what I said he’d done? ;D
How's it not matchday revenue (per fan), then? That's the bit I don't get. It looks like pretty straightforward maths to me? Unless I am missing something.
It doesn’t include food or programmes or corporate spend, it’s ticket sales, which is just a proportion of matchday revenue.
They’re reported separately in the accounts, but lumped in with commercial sponsorship.
I thought the discussion as specifically about income per fan, and programme sales aren't going to impact that.
But even if you look at our commercial revenue, it has been poor for ages.
Said this before but for years, we've managed to combine membership of a league which has a licence to print money, with poor commercial revenue growth (going back decades).
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 12:11:17 PM
It’s just that his table says matchday revenue per fan, which is misleading as you’d include food and drink sales and everything in that too.
It is very low, regardless. We must have a lot of concession sales pulling it down. I also wonder if box sales go into corporate rather than tickets, as you’d expect that to pull it upward too.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 31, 2024, 12:15:51 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 12:21:58 PM
Being decent in Europe, and domestic cups, makes a fair sized difference. Previous 2 seasons combined we had 1 home cup game, Stevenage. This season Lille makes a minimum of 7, and we were shit in the domestic cups. The teams we're competing with have those extra games pretty much every season. Extra gate revenue, plus extra TV money, sponsorship, prize money, merch/food/drink.
Yeah, I worked out we have an extra £5-6m in ticket sales from our home european games up to the QF.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 12:28:48 PM
Post by: eamonn on March 31, 2024, 12:37:34 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 31, 2024, 01:56:41 PM
Another reason Kieran Maguire’s table is poor is because if you look at Chelsea, they don’t separate out ticket revenue from matchday revenue. So his figure for them is taking their whole ticket price, food / corporate, and matchday sponsorship and dividing that per fan, whereas with us it’s just ticket price.
Which makes that table pretty pointless then really. Might explain why the Leeds figure was relatively high if they do the same?
Post by: Mister E on March 31, 2024, 06:22:38 PM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:Sorry: I should have been more inquisitive about the numbers before posting; apples-and-pears analysis, it looks like.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Post by: KevinGage on March 31, 2024, 06:40:33 PM
You start to see why Heck is doing what he does when you look at those figures, but at the same time, you wonder why no new North Stand, as it's hard to see where he really manages to shift things (other than squeezing prices, and even that's going to have limited impact).
A new North Stand based on Purslow's plan only increases bums on seats by an extra 7000 or so.
A new Fred Rinder/ Ron Saunders stand with an improved corporate offering, where - for example - the current Doug Ellis sits = much more potential revenue.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 31, 2024, 06:49:39 PM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:Sorry: I should have been more inquisitive about the numbers before posting; apples-and-pears analysis, it looks like.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
It's not on you at all mate. Maguire should have provided a bit more explanation about it.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 31, 2024, 06:52:13 PM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:Sorry: I should have been more inquisitive about the numbers before posting; apples-and-pears analysis, it looks like.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
It's not on you at all mate. Maguire should have provided a bit more explanation about it.
He puts about as much effort into analysing Villa’s finances as the majority of pundits put into analysing our play.
Post by: Richard E on March 31, 2024, 07:16:57 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 07:19:32 PM
Everton fans seem increasingly worried that they could end up in administration soon.
Good. Fingers crossed.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 07:32:20 PM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Far be it for me to question accounts-skimmer and Football Insider advisor Keiran Maguire, but why is he posting data on 2021-22 when the accounts of 2022-23 are available? Also, if we’ve averaged only £18 per match per fan, is this excluding ticket price? I’m paying more than £18 a game…
Yes, I’ve pointed out the inaccuracy of his figures on here before and been told in no uncertain terms that he is the all-seeing eye.
That's not the way it looks to me. Figures from swiss ramble.
Chelsea - 2021-22
Matchday - 69m
Broadcasting - 235m
Commercial - 177m
Played - 30 home matches, 30 * 40,000 = 1,200,000 punters
69,000,000 / 1,200,000 = £57.5 per customer.
What are they putting somewhere we don't put it?
Our corresponding figures are also split between match day, broadcasting and commercial.
Not sure what they're doing any different here?
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 07:33:32 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 31, 2024, 07:35:23 PM
Everton fans seem increasingly worried that they could end up in administration soon.
Ooh good. I love their Blue Room podcast when they’re in crisis, great for a bit of misery tourism.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 07:56:38 PM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Far be it for me to question accounts-skimmer and Football Insider advisor Keiran Maguire, but why is he posting data on 2021-22 when the accounts of 2022-23 are available? Also, if we’ve averaged only £18 per match per fan, is this excluding ticket price? I’m paying more than £18 a game…
Yes, I’ve pointed out the inaccuracy of his figures on here before and been told in no uncertain terms that he is the all-seeing eye.
That's not the way it looks to me. Figures from swiss ramble.
Chelsea - 2021-22
Matchday - 69m
Broadcasting - 235m
Commercial - 177m
Played - 30 home matches, 30 * 40,000 = 1,200,000 punters
69,000,000 / 1,200,000 = £57.5 per customer.
What are they putting somewhere we don't put it?
Our corresponding figures are also split between match day, broadcasting and commercial.
Not sure what they're doing any different here?
No, our revenue is split between gate receipts, broadcasting , sponsorship, and commercial. And in the notes it clearly says it is only ticket sales in gate receipts, and all other revenue goes to commercial.
So the £18.7m is not our matchday revenue, it’s our gate. Chelsea specifically report matchday revenue, but don’t tell us their gate receipts.
So you literally can’t compare the two figures.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 08:22:06 PM
Interesting table from Kieran Maguire in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117 (https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1774321633513091117)
It shows the matchday revenue per head from all the then-Premier-League clubs (it's data from 2021-22). Villa predictably near the bottom of the table.
Far be it for me to question accounts-skimmer and Football Insider advisor Keiran Maguire, but why is he posting data on 2021-22 when the accounts of 2022-23 are available? Also, if we’ve averaged only £18 per match per fan, is this excluding ticket price? I’m paying more than £18 a game…
Yes, I’ve pointed out the inaccuracy of his figures on here before and been told in no uncertain terms that he is the all-seeing eye.
That's not the way it looks to me. Figures from swiss ramble.
Chelsea - 2021-22
Matchday - 69m
Broadcasting - 235m
Commercial - 177m
Played - 30 home matches, 30 * 40,000 = 1,200,000 punters
69,000,000 / 1,200,000 = £57.5 per customer.
What are they putting somewhere we don't put it?
Our corresponding figures are also split between match day, broadcasting and commercial.
Not sure what they're doing any different here?
No, our revenue is split between gate receipts, broadcasting , sponsorship, and commercial. And in the notes it clearly says it is only ticket sales in gate receipts, and all other revenue goes to commercial.
So the £18.7m is not our matchday revenue, it’s our gate. Chelsea specifically report matchday revenue, but don’t tell us their gate receipts.
So you literally can’t compare the two figures.
Where did you read that? Out of interest - not being contrary, I have no dog in this race, just interested.
Post by: Dogtanian on March 31, 2024, 08:26:19 PM
Chelsea’s report isn’t clear what they do and don’t include, but that they call it matchday revenue suggests their figure isn’t just the ticket sales.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 31, 2024, 08:59:44 PM
Their accounts are shockingly bad though, it must be said.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2024, 10:38:49 PM
It’s on page 28 of our last accounts, and the notes underneath.
Chelsea’s report isn’t clear what they do and don’t include, but that they call it matchday revenue suggests their figure isn’t just the ticket sales.
Hmm, doesn't really sound very clear cut to me re Chelsea, but hey ho.
Anyway, the salient point in all this is really that our gate receipts are shockingly low.
*dons Heck mask*
Post by: tomd2103 on March 31, 2024, 11:56:09 PM
It’s on page 28 of our last accounts, and the notes underneath.
Chelsea’s report isn’t clear what they do and don’t include, but that they call it matchday revenue suggests their figure isn’t just the ticket sales.
Hmm, doesn't really sound very clear cut to me re Chelsea, but hey ho.
Anyway, the salient point in all this is really that our gate receipts are shockingly low.
*dons Heck mask*
I think the issue is that some of the figures on there include all matchday income (average ticket price, beverages, food etc.) whereas others just are just average ticket price and don't take any other spend into account.
Post by: Ads on April 01, 2024, 07:30:33 AM
Post by: Meanwood Villa on April 01, 2024, 07:32:16 AM
Set to be charged for 3 breaches.
Us?
Post by: PaulWinch again on April 01, 2024, 08:06:53 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 01, 2024, 08:07:23 AM
Post by: AV82EC on April 01, 2024, 08:07:41 AM
Post by: Meanwood Villa on April 01, 2024, 08:10:37 AM
April fool?
I hate this bastard day
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 01, 2024, 10:16:24 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on April 01, 2024, 10:29:09 AM
Nobody on Twitter posting this, so let’s hope it’s just on here.
Would have been charged by now if this was the case wouldn't we? Next deadline won't be until end of December?
Post by: DeKuip on April 01, 2024, 11:12:27 AM
Until this season’s European games I don’t think we’d had a big home cup tie since the Albion quarter final in 2015. Just the two play off semis.
You look at Chelsea for instance, not in Europe but still had 10 home cup games this season all with pretty much full houses. They’ve had 24k visiting fans in the FA Cup alone.
We need to show some intent in these competitions next season, get fans believing like in the 70s. Start trusting some of these talented youngsters we ought to have coming through and stop using cup games to give unwanted squad players a run out. Look at the teams that reach finals, they’re also generally playing in Europe and at the top end of the Premier League too.
Post by: Clampy on April 01, 2024, 11:25:12 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on April 01, 2024, 12:26:00 PM
There’s sod all prize money in the league cup and FA Cup, plus you share the gate receipts with the opposition. While we are trying to build a squad under the FFP cosh, we have to be a bit more selective where we use our strength.
Playing strong in the Prem and europe gets us more money to build the squad and makes us a more attractive destination to players. So it’s no surprise they are secondary at the minute.
Last time I looked, it’s about £0.5m to win the League Cup and £3.5m to win the FA Cup. Compare that to £3m per place in the league and about £15m to win the Conference League.
Post by: chrisw1 on April 01, 2024, 01:43:52 PM
Post by: Stu on April 01, 2024, 03:21:56 PM
Set to be charged for 3 breaches.
Get out with your April fools!
Post by: Gareth on April 01, 2024, 05:20:08 PM
It’s all about money and resources.
There’s sod all prize money in the league cup and FA Cup, plus you share the gate receipts with the opposition. While we are trying to build a squad under the FFP cosh, we have to be a bit more selective where we use our strength.
Playing strong in the Prem and europe gets us more money to build the squad and makes us a more attractive destination to players. So it’s no surprise they are secondary at the minute.
Last time I looked, it’s about £0.5m to win the League Cup and £3.5m to win the FA Cup. Compare that to £3m per place in the league and about £15m to win the Conference League.
Item 500 on why modern football is a little s**t
Not disagreeing with your point Dogtanian in any but when it became about just money and 4th (or 5th) being a priority over seeing a cup lifted it is a a lot s**t
Post by: tomd2103 on April 01, 2024, 09:32:03 PM
Post by: olaftab on April 01, 2024, 09:39:49 PM
Giving a couple of the kids a game in the cups is a good idea but then you'll have some fans who will get the hump that we haven't played our strongest line up. A few on here said Tim and Rodgers looked out of their depth away at Ajax but that game would have done them so much good.What about Rogers though?
Post by: rob_bridge on April 01, 2024, 09:42:08 PM
To he fair, we fielded a pretty much full-strength team against Chelsea in the FA Cup replay. It was just a poor performance on the night.
It was - a lot of folk had an off night and a fair few of theirs had an unusually good one.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 02, 2024, 09:01:26 AM
It’s all about money and resources.
There’s sod all prize money in the league cup and FA Cup, plus you share the gate receipts with the opposition. While we are trying to build a squad under the FFP cosh, we have to be a bit more selective where we use our strength.
Playing strong in the Prem and europe gets us more money to build the squad and makes us a more attractive destination to players. So it’s no surprise they are secondary at the minute.
Last time I looked, it’s about £0.5m to win the League Cup and £3.5m to win the FA Cup. Compare that to £3m per place in the league and about £15m to win the Conference League.
Item 500 on why modern football is a little s**t
Not disagreeing with your point Dogtanian in any but when it became about just money and 4th (or 5th) being a priority over seeing a cup lifted it is a a lot s**t
Don't worry, it will be ok when it grows up...
Post by: liamts4588 on April 02, 2024, 05:58:24 PM
Posted on avfc reddit earlier today
Post by: chrisw1 on April 02, 2024, 06:08:33 PM
Post by: AV82EC on April 02, 2024, 06:13:19 PM
Post by: Chris Harte on April 02, 2024, 06:20:58 PM
Post by: Lastfootstamper on April 02, 2024, 06:29:35 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 02, 2024, 06:37:02 PM
Years ago there's was someone (might've been Woodward, but I'm not sure) who used to do the commentary on the highlights for the OS, and they used to pronounce it 'Grelish', like relish with a 'G' tacked on the front.
Probably heard that Jack G likes to be on the sauce.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 03, 2024, 04:19:19 PM
Spurs reporting big losses now as well. Could someone with a better grasp of this kind of stuff please explain how the annual depreciation charge of £72m on the below paragraph works? It seems while that is in place then they won't have any FFP issues.
"Tottenham's losses over the last three years are beyond that threshold at £220.7m, but the annual depreciation charge of £72m, which refers to their stadium and other facilities, means they are not at risk of breaching PSR regulations".
Post by: Risso on April 03, 2024, 04:29:48 PM
Post by: Lastfootstamper on April 03, 2024, 04:32:08 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on April 03, 2024, 04:36:02 PM
Depreciation is a cost relating to the reduction in value of fixed assets, and therefore isn't included in the FFP calculations.
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but how does that relate to the stadium and would every club have that? Also, is that £72m figure fixed or does it fluctuate?
Post by: AV82EC on April 03, 2024, 04:36:53 PM
It got posted elsewhere earlier, but unfortunately, and I can't emphasise that word enough when it comes to this with these, unfortunately I don't think they're in trouble. They're just cash skint. I'll be gutted if our winning a European trophy helps them out.
Of course it could be argued that because we didn’t have a European Club coefficient last summer we used the country one contributed to by Spurs and all the other teams we detest, so swings and roundabouts.
Post by: Risso on April 03, 2024, 04:40:20 PM
Depreciation is a cost relating to the reduction in value of fixed assets, and therefore isn't included in the FFP calculations.
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but how does that relate to the stadium and would every club have that? Also, is that £72m figure fixed or does it fluctuate?
If a club owns their stadium, then yes. Usual practice is about 2% of the value every year. This doesn't apply to the land. Obviously, we don't own Villa Park any more, so this won't apply and we'll just be charged rent from the company (owned by Nas and Wes) that bought the stadium.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 03, 2024, 05:37:22 PM
Depreciation is a cost relating to the reduction in value of fixed assets, and therefore isn't included in the FFP calculations.
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but how does that relate to the stadium and would every club have that? Also, is that £72m figure fixed or does it fluctuate?
If a club owns their stadium, then yes. Usual practice is about 2% of the value every year. This doesn't apply to the land. Obviously, we don't own Villa Park any more, so this won't apply and we'll just be charged rent from the company (owned by Nas and Wes) that bought the stadium.
Cheers for the answers Risso. So does that £72m count as a deductible for FFP purposes? The article states that their losses are £220.7m over the three year period but akes out that the annual depreciation of £72m comes off that, so they are nowhere near the FFP (or is it P&S?) threshold.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 03, 2024, 07:51:31 PM
Cheers for the answers Risso. So does that £72m count as a deductible for FFP purposes? The article states that their losses are £220.7m over the three year period but akes out that the annual depreciation of £72m comes off that, so they are nowhere near the FFP (or is it P&S?) threshold.
Based solely on the above, it looks like their losses are £220.7m over 3 years, including a depreciation charge of £72m p.a. or £216m. If that's exempt for FFP purposes, it would then be added back to leave them with losses of £4.7m for the 3 year period.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 03, 2024, 09:25:58 PM
Building a massive stadium seems to be the cheat code to get round the FFP rules (assuming the owners have the cash).
Post by: Risso on April 03, 2024, 10:11:19 PM
Having that massive stadium that cost a fortune to maintain both in depreciation and interest payments, yet brings in massive revenue was a master stroke by Levy.
Building a massive stadium seems to be the cheat code to get round the FFP rules (assuming the owners have the cash).
Well, not really. It just gets ignored. If they haven't made losses, it's because their wages don't outstrip their revenue like ours do.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 03, 2024, 10:23:34 PM
Having that massive stadium that cost a fortune to maintain both in depreciation and interest payments, yet brings in massive revenue was a master stroke by Levy.
Building a massive stadium seems to be the cheat code to get round the FFP rules (assuming the owners have the cash).
Well, not really. It just gets ignored. If they haven't made losses, it's because their wages don't outstrip their revenue like ours do.
Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 03, 2024, 10:29:38 PM
I think you are confusing debt with costs and expenses.Having that massive stadium that cost a fortune to maintain both in depreciation and interest payments, yet brings in massive revenue was a master stroke by Levy.
Building a massive stadium seems to be the cheat code to get round the FFP rules (assuming the owners have the cash).
Well, not really. It just gets ignored. If they haven't made losses, it's because their wages don't outstrip their revenue like ours do.
Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
Post by: Risso on April 03, 2024, 10:42:58 PM
Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
It doesn't work like that at all. You can obviously spend what you like on a stadium without it affecting FFP, but that doesn't affect the stuff that does, like revenue, wages and amortisation.
Post by: Beard82 on April 03, 2024, 10:57:03 PM
Interest payments must effect FFP though? I think the point people are trying to make is that if you spend money on a new stadium and increase your revenue as a result then its a good move from an FFP perspective because the additional revenue created helps FFP the most of the costs you sunk into achieving that increased revenue arent counted against it.Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
It doesn't work like that at all. You can obviously spend what you like on a stadium without it affecting FFP, but that doesn't affect the stuff that does, like revenue, wages and amortisation.
Post by: SamTheMouse on April 03, 2024, 11:04:35 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on April 03, 2024, 11:10:03 PM
Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
It doesn't work like that at all. You can obviously spend what you like on a stadium without it affecting FFP, but that doesn't affect the stuff that does, like revenue, wages and amortisation.
I might have git this badly wrong (apologies if that is the case), but has the new stadium had that much of an impact for Spurs if they have lost £80m +? It seems that it is that £72m depreciation that is keeping them out of FFP trouble, as opposed to increased revenue?
As an aside, it said on the radio earlier that this is the first time in 14 years that they had not been in European competition.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 03, 2024, 11:15:10 PM
It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.
I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.
I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.
Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 03, 2024, 11:16:16 PM
Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
It doesn't work like that at all. You can obviously spend what you like on a stadium without it affecting FFP, but that doesn't affect the stuff that does, like revenue, wages and amortisation.
I might have git this badly wrong (apologies if that is the xase), but has the new stadium had that much of an impact for Spurs if they have lost £80m +? It seems that it is that £72m depreciation that is keeping them out of FFP trouble, as opposed to increased revenue?
As an aside, it said on the radio earlier that this is the first time in 14 years that they had not been in European competition.
Surely the answer to that is they'd have lost much more money without the extra revenue of the new stadium. That's going to be an absolute game changer for them.
And the no European competition thing won't have any accounts impact until next year's.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 04, 2024, 12:13:56 AM
Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.
It doesn't work like that at all. You can obviously spend what you like on a stadium without it affecting FFP, but that doesn't affect the stuff that does, like revenue, wages and amortisation.
I might have got this badly wrong (apologies if that is the xase), but has the new stadium had that much of an impact for Spurs if they have lost £80m +? It seems that it is that £72m depreciation that is keeping them out of FFP trouble, as opposed to increased revenue?
As an aside, it said on the radio earlier that this is the first time in 14 years that they had not been in European competition.
Surely the answer to that is they'd have lost much more money without the extra revenue of the new stadium. That's going to be an absolute game changer for them.
And the no European competition thing won't have any accounts impact until next year's.
Suppose the point I was trying to make was that even with the new stadium, they are still making big losses and need that £72m a year to keep them on the right side of FFP.
The Europe thing hadn't really got anything to do with FFP, just that I was surprised to hear they had been in Europe that long.
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 12:21:53 AM
Interest payments must effect FFP though? I think the point people are trying to make is that if you spend money on a new stadium and increase your revenue as a result then its a good move from an FFP perspective because the additional revenue created helps FFP the most of the costs you sunk into achieving that increased revenue arent counted against it.
Interest payments for loans directly used on a new stand or stadium would be deducted from FFP costs, so don't affect FFP. Everton tried to cloud the issue when they were in the dock by saying that the Premier League hadn't deducted interest on loans for the new stadium. What actually happened was that the loans from the owner for the ground development were interest free, and commercial loans they had from banks etc (which had explicit instructions that they couldn't be used for the stadium) were what the interest was actually charged on. This was working capital that went on normal day to day stuff like trabsfers and wages etc, so the PL rightly told them to bugger off.
As much as there is a point to FFP, that point is that expenditure on stuff for the long term benefit of the club like stadium work and youth development is encouraged by the authorities. Simply going out and spending gazillions on players and wages, isn't. Taking Spurs as an example, a massive new stadium with 20,000 extra seats is obviously going to stand them in much better stead in the future than say, giving x player £200,000 a week for 5 years.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 04, 2024, 12:25:34 AM
Suppose the point I was trying to make was that even with the new stadium, they are still making big losses and need that £72m a year to keep them on the right side of FFP.
The point is that they wouldn't have been making big losses if there wasn't that depreciation charge of £72m hitting their P&L each year.
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 11:07:10 AM
It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.
I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.
I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.
Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.
So far though, Comcast are rumoured to have put £100m in. That's not going to pay for a new stand, much less an entire new stadium. Obviously they could invest more or provide new loans or whatever in the future, but a new stadium is terms of building is going to be what, a minimum of 5 - 6 years away. You'd have to identify a site, have a public consultation, have plans drawn up, gain planning permission and compulsory purchase any houses/businesses who don't want to sell up before you even stick a spade in the ground. What are they going to be doing in the mean time?
Post by: chrisw1 on April 04, 2024, 11:23:00 AM
It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.
I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.
I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.
Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.
Don't you think our new head of Strategy and Analytics actually saying the North Stand had been cancelled because of a lack of confidence in the demand for GA+ tickets is a bigger clue?
I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 04, 2024, 11:24:50 AM
It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.
I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.
I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.
Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.
So far though, Comcast are rumoured to have put £100m in. That's not going to pay for a new stand, much less an entire new stadium. Obviously they could invest more or provide new loans or whatever in the future, but a new stadium is terms of building is going to be what, a minimum of 5 - 6 years away. You'd have to identify a site, have a public consultation, have plans drawn up, gain planning permission and compulsory purchase any houses/businesses who don't want to sell up before you even stick a spade in the ground. What are they going to be doing in the mean time?
Oh, I get that, but in terms of what they do in the meantime - exactly what Heck said, somehow shoe-horn another 3k seats in, at least to address the number of seats problem.
The question would be - even if a new stadium is 5-6 years away, would it make sense to spend 120m or whatever it is on a stand that'll be getting demolished? Of course it wouldn't.
As for Comcast, yes, that 100m is not going to scratch the surface, one assumes, but then again, leaving the entire ground question to one side - what exactly have they put 100m in for?
Our financial problems don't seem to be about finding the money, the most pressing one is PSR and obviously, Comcast buying in isn't going to do much to change that.
So what's in it for them?
We pretty much all agree the club is largely hamstrung - at least in terms of making a big jump - on the revenues front with the current set up. Betano and Adidas will make a difference, yes, but the shirt sponsor going from 8m a year to 20m, whilst very helpful, is not game changing.
Whatever the plan is, it can not be to just stay where we are and change nothing.
Post by: Villan82 on April 04, 2024, 11:33:24 AM
Quote
Whatever the plan is, it can not be to just stay where we are and change nothing
See, I think the plan could well be to copy Chelsea. Maximise a 40k ground for premium.
All we have to go on is the shift that accompanied Heck's appointment.
Before he came we had big plans for a badge that was a clean break with the Lerner badge and a brand new North Stand. Since he came we have apparently decided to evolve the Lerner badge and we have cancelled the redevelopment. It has gone from bold change to minimal change on a couple of fronts and it sort of dampened the vision of a club on the move.
Of course you may well be correct butI wouldn't get my hopes up to be honest.
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 11:35:15 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 04, 2024, 11:49:49 AM
It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.
I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.
I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.
Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.
Don't you think our new head of Strategy and Analytics actually saying the North Stand had been cancelled because of a lack of confidence in the demand for GA+ tickets is a bigger clue?I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).
Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.
I wouldn't worry too much about what somebody says at a conference. If there are plans, and they don't want to release them for whatever reason, it's not going to come out at an industry event way ahead of time.
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 11:50:56 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 04, 2024, 11:53:59 AM
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 11:57:00 AM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
Oh I think it is too. My first choice woud be a sparkly brand new stadium somewhere more central. Failing that, a major revamp of Villa Park. The very worst option would be some sort of miserable compromise with some extra seats shoehorned in and some badly thought out and executed GA+ shite, along the lines of Terrace View and Lower Grounds. I think Heck's communication skills are pathetic, but surely he must see what needs to be done.
Post by: Villan82 on April 04, 2024, 11:58:06 AM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
Post by: DB on April 04, 2024, 12:12:57 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if news of a new ground comes out really quickly in the summer. We're too deep into our chase for CL/UECL to release it now but I don't think what the plans are can drag on into the new season.
I said this a few weeks back, something is coming…
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 12:19:37 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on April 04, 2024, 12:36:05 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 04, 2024, 12:40:57 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
No we can’t. We can’t do anything in the Witton side of the ground and the transport is woeful for 40k let alone 55 or 60k.
Post by: eamonn on April 04, 2024, 12:41:11 PM
And how much will we spend on revamping the "megastore" and the "Warehouse" (to fit 3,000 folk at any one time)? It seems a lot to plan and spend-on if it's just for short to medium term use until we move away from Villa Park.
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 12:45:28 PM
Heck has pretty much said they want to maximise the current bowl, so in the short-medium term I think anybody expecting anything other than a crap compromise solution is going to be disappointed.
Doing this while planning a new ground isn't necessarily exclusive. In fact, given the time it would take to break ground and see the construction through, I would be surprised if they didn't try and stuff Villa Park up the the gills. It's if the crap compromise is the forever solution that's the problem.
Post by: Villan82 on April 04, 2024, 12:46:15 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
No we can’t. We can’t do anything in the Witton side of the ground and the transport is woeful for 40k let alone 55 or 60k.
If there was a site with two rail stations empty we'd be saying 'build it there'.
If we have a billion for a new stadium we can easily cut a deal for Witton for much less imho. And clearly behind the North Stand we have acres for development
Post by: SamTheMouse on April 04, 2024, 12:50:53 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 04, 2024, 01:05:47 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
No we can’t. We can’t do anything in the Witton side of the ground and the transport is woeful for 40k let alone 55 or 60k.
Why not?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 04, 2024, 01:07:48 PM
Someone needs to sit Heck down and show him Field of Dreams.
As opposed to Dances with Wolves.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 04, 2024, 01:25:34 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
No we can’t. We can’t do anything in the Witton side of the ground and the transport is woeful for 40k let alone 55 or 60k.
Why not?
Because of the housing there. We can’t build higher without disrupting sight lines and we are not about to get a CP order for 100 private houses.
See what Liverpool had to do. Act like ****** for 20 years.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 04, 2024, 01:34:39 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
No we can’t. We can’t do anything in the Witton side of the ground and the transport is woeful for 40k let alone 55 or 60k.
Why not?
Because of the housing there. We can’t build higher without disrupting sight lines and we are not about to get a CP order for 100 private houses.
See what Liverpool had to do. Act like ****** for 20 years.
Ah, so it's about the height for the houses, as opposed to the actual road?
If it was the road, we could just do what they did at the Vicente Calderón Stadium & build over the road, like they did with a dual carriageway.
If its about height, then the only other option is to dig down...
Not sure if that could work or not though.
While it all fascinates me, engineering & architecture are not exactly my forte... 👍
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 01:35:33 PM
How much have we spent on the Brookvale Academy training centre - purposely built a stone's throw from Villa Park?
And how much will we spend on revamping the "megastore" and the "Warehouse" (to fit 3,000 folk at any one time)? It seems a lot to plan and spend-on if it's just for short to medium term use until we move away from Villa Park.
The new club shop won't cost very much at all. I imagine they're just going to use some of the upstairs space, and so the cost will be that of a minor shop fit out, ie bugger all in the grand scheme of things. Similarly the Warehouse plans have been massively scaled back from the Villa Live idea, so I imagine it will be a bar at one end, and then a load of exposed brick and rustic looking trestle tables. Not much again as there's no actual building to do, and if it's even half decent, it'll start to pay for itself straight away.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 04, 2024, 01:37:17 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.
Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.
No we can’t. We can’t do anything in the Witton side of the ground and the transport is woeful for 40k let alone 55 or 60k.
If there was a site with two rail stations empty we'd be saying 'build it there'.
If we have a billion for a new stadium we can easily cut a deal for Witton for much less imho. And clearly behind the North Stand we have acres for development
The 'problem' with the current location is that the club probably wouldn't get the non-football benefits of a brand new stadium with corporate and entertainment facilities because of where it is.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 04, 2024, 01:41:58 PM
I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.
There has to be I would think. You can't get a sensible answer to the big question 'how do we move the club forward' without pretty quickly considering the ground. If we are discussing it on here, they surely must be.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 04, 2024, 01:59:17 PM
Quote
🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 02:01:33 PM
To the latter, I'd also add the multi-use aspect: any new stadium on the scale we envisage has to be bringing in gigs and events every summer at least. Would building next to the NEC hinder that? Would having a city centre stadium hinder that with the proximity of the NIA? Spuds bring in the NFL, Spam seem to have dibs on the baseball, is there anything left for Brum?
There are pros and cons to every possible location, but ultimately you just have to have a plan and faith it'll work out. I mean, we're the second city, we should act like it.
Post by: chrisw1 on April 04, 2024, 02:09:09 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Perfect for the oil clubs.Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
Post by: Dogtanian on April 04, 2024, 02:13:19 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Perfect for the oil clubs.Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
Yes, and completely removes the supposed protection that FFP was put in place. So under this, not only can a club massively spend and get into debt and go bankrupt, but the Premier League would just add more debt on top?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 04, 2024, 02:20:00 PM
How much have we spent on the Brookvale Academy training centre - purposely built a stone's throw from Villa Park?
And how much will we spend on revamping the "megastore" and the "Warehouse" (to fit 3,000 folk at any one time)? It seems a lot to plan and spend-on if it's just for short to medium term use until we move away from Villa Park.
The academy doesn’t need to be nextdoor to our home ground. The point of it being in the inner-city is that it’s handy for kids who can’t easily get to Bodymoor. The shop and Warehouse won’t cost much relatively speaking, we’ll soon make that money back on them I reckon.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 04, 2024, 02:22:39 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
I like this idea but only if the tax is distributed much lower down than the PL.
Post by: Ads on April 04, 2024, 02:24:14 PM
Good idea though generally. I think they're looking to protect the brand a bit, which suits us as much as others.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 04, 2024, 02:30:45 PM
A lot of the consideration has to be transport links. As someone said earlier, if you had a site that was between two railway stations you wouldn't look anywhere else, but context is king - they don't get trains every five minutes like an underground or a suburban line. I think this would be the problem with a site like the NEC too; it has a railway station but the trains are nowhere near regular enough for sixty odd thousand people to come and go once a fortnight.
To the latter, I'd also add the multi-use aspect: any new stadium on the scale we envisage has to be bringing in gigs and events every summer at least. Would building next to the NEC hinder that? Would having a city centre stadium hinder that with the proximity of the NIA? Spuds bring in the NFL, Spam seem to have dibs on the baseball, is there anything left for Brum?
There are pros and cons to every possible location, but ultimately you just have to have a plan and faith it'll work out. I mean, we're the second city, we should act like it.
A 60,000 stadium would be three times the size of the NEC or NIA, so would be attracting a completely different level of artist or event.
I have no idea about planning etc. but the NIA site would be a good one if you were going to build a stadium. Close to town, but just far enough away from everything that you you would do very well on drinks and food.
The whole Dale End area is a real eyesore now and that would be another good location if possible.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on April 04, 2024, 02:34:42 PM
Post by: Clark W Griswold on April 04, 2024, 02:40:57 PM
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 02:57:02 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on April 04, 2024, 02:59:52 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on April 04, 2024, 02:59:59 PM
Post by: dicedlam on April 04, 2024, 03:03:03 PM
I can see both points on either staying where we are, or the need for us to build a new stadium, but I'm also sure the dilemma is not helped when you cannot necessarily predict accurately what the future holds for the club (see Everton's present situation).
Having American owners and management that is used to sport where teams do not get relegated, along with not having to pay substantial transfer fees has to be part of the decision making whether we go big, or just tread water. This as we know is a far easier call to make in the US.
Also, in most cases in the states, the captive audience is far greater when you are a state sporting franchise as opposed to having six teams all within twenty five miles of each other.
I don't know what the answer is, but to stand still I believe is not an option.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on April 04, 2024, 03:05:31 PM
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 03:06:50 PM
Do they want to stop clubs going bust? Well, those owned by Arab states aren't ever going to, and if they put money in via share issues, there's no debt in the future to worry about. Do they want to have more of an even playing field for teams so that the same few teams don't dominate every year? Well the teams outside of the usual suspects might want to, but the likes of Man City and Liverpool won't, and I'm sure the Premier League is perfectly happy with the status quo when it comes to flogging TV rights abroad. Foreign fans are paying stupid money to see Man City v Liverpool, they're not bothered about Burnley v Everton.
A wage cap would go some way to making the game more even, but then the Premier League would be worried about losing better players to the other top leagues if it was imposed. The idea of a European Super League is also something still waiting in the wings that hasn't been fully dispatched yet.
Post by: Demitri_C on April 04, 2024, 03:09:59 PM
This is gonna kill this game
Post by: Villan82 on April 04, 2024, 03:21:27 PM
1. It might be easier to accept leaving Villa Park if they hadn't teased us with what a redeveloped Villa Park would have looked like.
2. If they are leaving Villa Park if needs to be for something quite spectacular. Villa Park is an iconic venue and not just for us. We've been through it all there and many FA Cup semi-finalists have too.
3. After what we've seen so far I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about Heck being the mastermind of a new stadium but that's a question for another day.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 04, 2024, 03:26:13 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Perfect for the oil clubs.Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
Yup, you may as well call it the Petrol Tax. Historically a similar tax was first introduced in 1910 in the People's Budget. This one they can call the Citizen's (and Magpies) Budget.
Post by: Monty on April 04, 2024, 03:28:24 PM
Post by: Risso on April 04, 2024, 03:31:21 PM
On the stadium question
1. It might be easier to accept leaving Villa Park if they hadn't teased us with what a redeveloped Villa Park would have looked like.
2. If they are leaving Villa Park if needs to be for something quite spectacular. Villa Park is an iconic venue and not just for us. We've been through it all there and many FA Cup semi-finalists have too.
3. After what we've seen so far I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about Heck being the mastermind of a new stadium but that's a question for another day.
There hasn't been an FA Cup semi final at Villa for 20 years, so you'd have to be getting on for 30 to even remember one properly.
Post by: eamonn on April 04, 2024, 03:34:34 PM
How much have we spent on the Brookvale Academy training centre - purposely built a stone's throw from Villa Park?
And how much will we spend on revamping the "megastore" and the "Warehouse" (to fit 3,000 folk at any one time)? It seems a lot to plan and spend-on if it's just for short to medium term use until we move away from Villa Park.
The academy doesn’t need to be nextdoor to our home ground. The point of it being in the inner-city is that it’s handy for kids who can’t easily get to Bodymoor.
Sure but building it next to our current ground was surely deliberate - synergy an'shit. And I thought you wanted Villa Park forever :(
Post by: Paul.S on April 04, 2024, 03:40:50 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
I cannot see how this will not benefit certain clubs more than others. I suppose it depends on the level of the ‘luxury tax’ but even then some will just pay it and carry on.
A European wide salary cap and continued points deductions appear the only way of keeping football from eating itself.
Certain clubs have had it their own way for far too long and the points deductions at least appear to have had some effect on them. Is this the reason these changes are suddenly being talked about?
It all stinks of clubs with a never ending pot of cash throwing the smaller fish money so they can carry on spending.
Post by: Brend'Watkins on April 04, 2024, 03:44:42 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Perfect for the oil clubs.Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
Yup, you may as well call it the Petrol Tax. Historically a similar tax was first introduced in 1910 in the People's Budget. This one they can call the Citizen's (and Magpies) Budget.
It all depends what that financial hit is really. £25 million to each club? What's right and what should happen pfft!
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 03:52:00 PM
Post by: TelfordVilla on April 04, 2024, 03:56:29 PM
Post by: SamTheMouse on April 04, 2024, 03:59:07 PM
Post by: olaftab on April 04, 2024, 04:04:41 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 04, 2024, 04:13:02 PM
A lot of the consideration has to be transport links. As someone said earlier, if you had a site that was between two railway stations you wouldn't look anywhere else, but context is king - they don't get trains every five minutes like an underground or a suburban line. I think this would be the problem with a site like the NEC too; it has a railway station but the trains are nowhere near regular enough for sixty odd thousand people to come and go once a fortnight.
To the latter, I'd also add the multi-use aspect: any new stadium on the scale we envisage has to be bringing in gigs and events every summer at least. Would building next to the NEC hinder that? Would having a city centre stadium hinder that with the proximity of the NIA? Spuds bring in the NFL, Spam seem to have dibs on the baseball, is there anything left for Brum?
There are pros and cons to every possible location, but ultimately you just have to have a plan and faith it'll work out. I mean, we're the second city, we should act like it.
A 60,000 stadium would be three times the size of the NEC or NIA, so would be attracting a completely different level of artist or event.
I have no idea about planning etc. but the NIA site would be a good one if you were going to build a stadium. Close to town, but just far enough away from everything that you you would do very well on drinks and food.
The whole Dale End area is a real eyesore now and that would be another good location if possible.
Too much of an incline plus not a big enough area now. The incline would mean we either have to build on pillars or dig down a fair bit to level it off. And as a fair bit of DE is being knocked down for the tramline to go through to meet Curzon and Digbeth, it cuts the land available down.
Post by: Rigadon on April 04, 2024, 05:50:14 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Perfect for the oil clubs.Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
Yup, you may as well call it the Petrol Tax. Historically a similar tax was first introduced in 1910 in the People's Budget. This one they can call the Citizen's (and Magpies) Budget.
It sounds like a good way to keep the top 6 (or maybe now 8, or is it 9) happier, provide the premier league with an opt out on what should be a biblical points deduction for Man City and avoid the super league nonsense from reappearing. The premier league will LOVE it. But I can't see how any of this would benefit Aston Villa. There is no way we can compete financially with an oil state regardless of how rich our owners undoubtedly are. It'd be just another glass ceiling wouldn't it?
Post by: Rigadon on April 04, 2024, 05:51:20 PM
Post by: devilla on April 04, 2024, 06:00:50 PM
Any kind of financial penalty just won't matter to cit£h and Saudicastle, they just soak it up. So it looks like a very bad idea to me. Stick with points deductions as it's the only thing that'll hurt those two if they've breached FFP.
Post by: Pete3206 on April 04, 2024, 06:08:28 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on April 04, 2024, 06:20:34 PM
All I see here is a way for Man City to escape punishment.
This
Dont forget chelsea
Post by: The Edge on April 04, 2024, 06:35:42 PM
I'm definitely a remainer but if we had to move it has to be within a mile of VP. The old gasholders site in Avenue Rd is one possibility and I think there's room where Powerleague is on Lichfield Rd but neither would do anything to ease the current transport issues. How about a groundshare at Wheels Park? Quickly grabs tin hat.A lot of the consideration has to be transport links. As someone said earlier, if you had a site that was between two railway stations you wouldn't look anywhere else, but context is king - they don't get trains every five minutes like an underground or a suburban line. I think this would be the problem with a site like the NEC too; it has a railway station but the trains are nowhere near regular enough for sixty odd thousand people to come and go once a fortnight.
To the latter, I'd also add the multi-use aspect: any new stadium on the scale we envisage has to be bringing in gigs and events every summer at least. Would building next to the NEC hinder that? Would having a city centre stadium hinder that with the proximity of the NIA? Spuds bring in the NFL, Spam seem to have dibs on the baseball, is there anything left for Brum?
There are pros and cons to every possible location, but ultimately you just have to have a plan and faith it'll work out. I mean, we're the second city, we should act like it.
A 60,000 stadium would be three times the size of the NEC or NIA, so would be attracting a completely different level of artist or event.
I have no idea about planning etc. but the NIA site would be a good one if you were going to build a stadium. Close to town, but just far enough away from everything that you you would do very well on drinks and food.
The whole Dale End area is a real eyesore now and that would be another good location if possible.
Too much of an incline plus not a big enough area now. The incline would mean we either have to build on pillars or dig down a fair bit to level it off. And as a fair bit of DE is being knocked down for the tramline to go through to meet Curzon and Digbeth, it cuts the land available down.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 04, 2024, 06:41:43 PM
All I see here is a way for Man City to escape punishment.
All I see here is a proposal that is being considered. One that suits Citeh and the Jaudis, and maybe Chelsea and Yanited. It will need more than them to be in favour of it.
Post by: Beard82 on April 04, 2024, 06:42:59 PM
But this was my point a couple weeks ago. FFP wont stick because its not fit for purpose. So lets not make a decisions based on that.All I see here is a way for Man City to escape punishment.
This
Dont forget chelsea
If we decide we need to leave Villa Park (And I hope we don't) - lets do it because we decide the club needs a different home for the next 100 years. Rather than because we need to break a glass ceiling.
At the end of the day - the sky 6 will find other ways of trying to remove competition from their business plans. So lets just focus on what were doing, and whats right for us for the next 100 years. Long after the planet has run out of oil - people will still be going to watch the Villa.
Post by: Villan82 on April 04, 2024, 06:48:08 PM
I'm definitely a remainer but if we had to move it has to be within a mile of VP. The old gasholders site in Avenue Rd is one possibility and I think there's room where Powerleague is on Lichfield Rd but neither would do anything to ease the current transport issues. How about a groundshare at Wheels Park? Quickly grabs tin hat.A lot of the consideration has to be transport links. As someone said earlier, if you had a site that was between two railway stations you wouldn't look anywhere else, but context is king - they don't get trains every five minutes like an underground or a suburban line. I think this would be the problem with a site like the NEC too; it has a railway station but the trains are nowhere near regular enough for sixty odd thousand people to come and go once a fortnight.
To the latter, I'd also add the multi-use aspect: any new stadium on the scale we envisage has to be bringing in gigs and events every summer at least. Would building next to the NEC hinder that? Would having a city centre stadium hinder that with the proximity of the NIA? Spuds bring in the NFL, Spam seem to have dibs on the baseball, is there anything left for Brum?
There are pros and cons to every possible location, but ultimately you just have to have a plan and faith it'll work out. I mean, we're the second city, we should act like it.
A 60,000 stadium would be three times the size of the NEC or NIA, so would be attracting a completely different level of artist or event.
I have no idea about planning etc. but the NIA site would be a good one if you were going to build a stadium. Close to town, but just far enough away from everything that you you would do very well on drinks and food.
The whole Dale End area is a real eyesore now and that would be another good location if possible.
Too much of an incline plus not a big enough area now. The incline would mean we either have to build on pillars or dig down a fair bit to level it off. And as a fair bit of DE is being knocked down for the tramline to go through to meet Curzon and Digbeth, it cuts the land available down.
The argument that keeps being put to me about why they need to leave Villa Park is that the area isn't going to cut it commercially. So presumably the same applies on your suggested site.
And Beard82, agree with you there. i have said that a few times also. The rules may not stay as they are but we will throw a billion at a new stadium rather than 100 million on a new stand just because of the current rules?
Post by: SaddVillan on April 04, 2024, 07:35:15 PM
https://twitter.com/PurelyFootball/status/1775870305010962928Quote🚨 The Premier League is considering REMOVING points deductions and introducing an NBA-style 'luxury tax' due to concerns that top players might leave if their pay is restricted.
The 'luxury tax' would penalise clubs financially for overspending, with the penalty increasing based on their spending. Clubs in theory could still choose to spend freely if they prefer but with the knowledge of taking another financial hit.
The tax could then be distributed to the other Premier League clubs who stayed within the rules.
(Source:
@MikeKeegan_DM)
The Greedy6 have seen the tide of points deductions rising up the table and have, no doubt seen what the future holds for them - 115City in particular; and have tried to come up with an alternative that "works" for them.
Their thought process:
We've got oodles of cash and wealthy owners. Points deductions could push us out of the Chumps League, or even worse and that would be a bummer - prize money, TV money, sponsorships would alll be at risk.
Imposing financial restrictions would affect everybody, but we can more easily afford to pay any "fine" than those at the bottom as well as aspiring clubs such as Villa, Toon and even Spurs. This will reinforce even further our financial advantage.
This the way to go chaps. We need to stop anyone else challenging us.
Post by: curiousorange on April 04, 2024, 07:59:42 PM
Personally, I hate it. It's a sop to the cheats and wannabe cheats, and another step to a closed shop.
Post by: DB on April 04, 2024, 08:31:14 PM
All I see here is a way for Man City to escape punishment.
I think the charges are not just FFP related.
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 04, 2024, 10:46:08 PM
Post by: KevinGage on April 04, 2024, 11:02:28 PM
Bring this in after.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 05, 2024, 09:31:23 AM
Surely?
And then I laugh at myself for thinking that football will be treat all clubs equally...
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 05, 2024, 09:38:46 AM
They are not going to stand by and watch Citeh buy title after title.
This has been clear for some time now.
Post by: DB on April 05, 2024, 09:39:31 AM
Wasn’t behind a paywall for me.
Post by: Demitri_C on April 05, 2024, 09:46:48 AM
Posted via McGuire…. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32eb6707-60d7-4ad8-bb46-fd05d73dcb25?shareToken=9fde931b63b21423cf4f7078c55cc323
Wasn’t behind a paywall for me.
Better for me. Im in favour of wage cap and i personally wouldnt care if it meant english foitball suffered in europe. Would certainly make the english league for entertaining to watch
Post by: curiousorange on April 05, 2024, 10:18:39 AM
Post by: Steve67 on April 05, 2024, 10:31:09 AM
Post by: sid1964 on April 05, 2024, 10:43:31 AM
Heard of a podcast that a few of their charges are about grass length, size of dressing rooms etc...
Post by: Ads on April 05, 2024, 10:49:22 AM
Post by: Risso on April 05, 2024, 10:51:33 AM
Charges in that link. Nothing to do with grass or changing rooms, everything to do with being fraudulent twats.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 05, 2024, 10:53:29 AM
With regards to City, does anyone know what the charges are against them?
Heard of a podcast that a few of their charges are about grass length, size of dressing rooms etc...
I would start listening to a proper podcast then as the one you are listening to is making stuff up.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 05, 2024, 12:32:24 PM
With regards to City, does anyone know what the charges are against them?
Heard of a podcast that a few of their charges are about grass length, size of dressing rooms etc...
Was Graeme Souness on that podcast?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on April 05, 2024, 01:44:20 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522
Post by: Michael Cornwall on April 06, 2024, 09:09:44 AM
for volunteers to sell raffle tickets to raise funds. At
the time we were European bleedin' Champions. What a visionary.
Post by: Goldenballs on April 06, 2024, 09:22:57 AM
Post by: Rigadon on April 06, 2024, 09:29:45 AM
What if this 'luxury tax' or whatever it is called was pretty hefty, and was shared out between clubs who hadn't breached the spending rules.
That'll be the kickback that the likes of Brentford and Bournemouth et al might go for when it comes to a vote on rule changes. It'd be another glass ceiling for clubs not owned by oil states, who have unlimited funds. It's just another scheme to allow unlimited spending for a few clubs and would probably hasten the arrival of even more state ownership. Unless you're literally talking about billions, any kind 'tax' would be meaningless.
Post by: Goldenballs on April 06, 2024, 09:54:05 AM
What if this 'luxury tax' or whatever it is called was pretty hefty, and was shared out between clubs who hadn't breached the spending rules.
That'll be the kickback that the likes of Brentford and Bournemouth et al might go for when it comes to a vote on rule changes. It'd be another glass ceiling for clubs not owned by oil states, who have unlimited funds. It's just another scheme to allow unlimited spending for a few clubs and would probably hasten the arrival of even more state ownership. Unless you're literally talking about billions, any kind 'tax' would be meaningless.
It might be meaningless to begin with, but if the big clubs continued to piss money up the wall on shit like Chelsea and Man Utd have done, then on top of that they're strengthening better run clubs, the smaller better run clubs like Brighton won't have to constantly have their best players picked off, or can ask for even sillier fees.
Just a thought really.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 06, 2024, 10:24:22 AM
Post by: Smithy on April 06, 2024, 12:57:43 PM
Maybe a wealth tax would be enough to stop the uber-wealthy clubs running at a loss every year; maybe it wouldn't. And that's the risk. If some state-owned team is willing to pay £500m+ a year in wealth tax to the other teams in the league to ensure their position at the top of the league, then the competition itself would die. But, in principle, I don't mind the idea of them throwing a couple of billion quid at improving their stadium, squad, and infrastructure over a "few" years, as long as, say, by year 5 the club is running on a sound financial footing, at which point there are some huge sporting penalties that kick in for financial breaches.
It would allow all clubs to dream of having a wealthy owner to elevate them to the top of the game, while also removing the safety of a 'blank cheque' that would keep them there indefinitely.
I don't know. There are probably a million unseen holes and unintended consequences in this idea, but I do think something needs to change to prevent the competition element from disappearing for good.
Post by: SamTheMouse on April 06, 2024, 01:02:05 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 06, 2024, 01:26:29 PM
Doug used to put an appeal in the programme asking
for volunteers to sell raffle tickets to raise funds. At
the time we were European bleedin' Champions. What a visionary.
Firstly, welcome. It sounds like you'll fit right in here. Second, without wishing to re-visit the Ellis years for the millionth time, we're paying the price for 25 years of commercial underperformance.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 06, 2024, 01:28:34 PM
They got to those positions broadly because they built great teams, and they've capitalised on the wealth of the modern era to become untouchable. But they're inevitably the most popular clubs because success breeds success, as we've seen with the inexplicable popularity of Chelsea this century (if only all their African fans knew what their British fans are like!)
This luxury tax idea is obviously a sop to Newcastle et al, but I imagine Villa would vote for it (for our own selfish reasons), as would the mid-lower-table clubs because they're never going to say no to free money. It stinks, but the Premier League has been increasingly whiffy since its inception. I'd see this as being marginally less awful than the status quo (and much less awful than Status Quo).
Post by: curiousorange on April 06, 2024, 01:46:45 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 07, 2024, 08:00:45 AM
The idea is really only designed to benefit one club and that's Saudi United. The likes of Abu Dhabi, Liverpool, Yanited and even Arsenal already have huge revenues and anything that enables clubs with lower income to match their spending is only going to eat into their current financial advantage.Agree, it’s a bad idea and is really just allowable corruption.
We can spend as much as we like and keep buying titles as long as we are bunging backhanders to keep everyone quiet. It will just keep feeding higher wages, agents fees and graft.
I don’t understand why The authorities do not adopt the measures (covenants) that Financial institutions use to control financial excess in respect of Borrowers and Investees.
Post by: Simon Page on April 07, 2024, 12:58:51 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on April 07, 2024, 01:01:58 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 07, 2024, 02:24:54 PM
Not seen if it’s been mentioned but we’ve moved our year end to June. Presumably to give us more time to raise funds?
Possibly, and/or to mirror the accounting period of PSR.
Post by: dave.woodhall on April 07, 2024, 03:29:14 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on April 07, 2024, 03:50:37 PM
Post by: DB on April 08, 2024, 02:08:19 PM
Post by: Drummond on April 08, 2024, 02:17:55 PM
Post by: Gareth on April 08, 2024, 02:20:07 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 08, 2024, 02:22:47 PM
Post by: eamonn on April 08, 2024, 02:38:54 PM
Good use of 'whiffy'. It was like Rik Mayall was back with us for a second.
Likely a strong influence on the young 'Sexual'.
Post by: lovejoy on April 08, 2024, 03:07:00 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on April 08, 2024, 03:14:06 PM
Post by: Ads on April 08, 2024, 03:17:10 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 08, 2024, 03:19:17 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 08, 2024, 03:26:17 PM
Although if the PL suspect it is a deliberate ploy to gain the system, then 6 could become 8 or 10 again.
Exactly.
Post by: lovejoy on April 08, 2024, 03:27:51 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on April 08, 2024, 04:02:48 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 08, 2024, 04:20:16 PM
Forest sold Johnson when they wanted to. We can sell our players when we want to. Who decides how long you can hold on to a player for? Surely a players contract is the defining factor in how long you hold on to a player for. Who decides and by what measure if you are gaming the system? We've tried to stay within the rules but we've failed. That was what Forest said too. They got a 4pter.Have we failed?
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 08, 2024, 04:30:55 PM
Forest sold Johnson when they wanted to. We can sell our players when we want to. Who decides how long you can hold on to a player for? Surely a players contract is the defining factor in how long you hold on to a player for. Who decides and by what measure if you are gaming the system? We've tried to stay within the rules but we've failed. That was what Forest said too. They got a 4pter.
When you have broken the rules by a set date.
I get the frustration that Chelsea & ManC are fucking the rules in the face right in front of our eyes, but Forest broke the rules.
Set rules, for a specific date.
Ignore the argument for being told when they are allowed to sell a player. That is not what has happened.
If they were that concerned with getting the most for Johnson, they wouldn't have purchased enough players to set them over the FFP limit by the set date for punishments, before they sold Johnson.
They chose to purchase players before selling a key member.
That has nothing to do with the FA, the Premier League, etc, telling them what they can & cant do, other than the FFP/PSR rules that we all are meant to be following.
Their rule breaking was simple & punished as such.
Now ManC & Chelsea, they are a different kettle of fish altogether.
Post by: AV82EC on April 08, 2024, 05:18:17 PM
Forest sold Johnson when they wanted to. We can sell our players when we want to. Who decides how long you can hold on to a player for? Surely a players contract is the defining factor in how long you hold on to a player for. Who decides and by what measure if you are gaming the system? We've tried to stay within the rules but we've failed. That was what Forest said too. They got a 4pter.
No we haven’t.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 08, 2024, 05:51:25 PM
Although if the PL suspect it is a deliberate ploy to gain the system, then 6 could become 8 or 10 again.
I don’t think it can be 9 or 10. The reason Everton’s 10 point deduction was reduced on appeal was because the tariff for administration is 9, and it was deemed that breaching FFP has to be judged as less serious than that.
Post by: aj2k77 on April 08, 2024, 06:09:20 PM
Post by: lovejoy on April 08, 2024, 06:37:06 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 08, 2024, 06:54:49 PM
Although if the PL suspect it is a deliberate ploy to gain the system, then 6 could become 8 or 10 again.
I don’t think it can be 9 or 10. The reason Everton’s 10 point deduction was reduced on appeal was because the tariff for administration is 9, and it was deemed that breaching FFP has to be judged as less serious than that.
But it was also reduced to 6 as unlike the original panel, they decided that Everton didn't deliberately try to obfuscate the funding in their accounts and decided it was genuine mistakes. So 6 is basic, then points are worked added on or off for how deliberate the breach was and how forthcoming the club is to the PL.
If they decide clubs are deliberately going over because they don't think the points will be an issue in the long run, then they might increase the 6.
Also, people need to remember that a breach is punished the next season, so we might finish 5th and potentially in the CL with a 4-6 point reduction this season*, but next season we won't know if it will be the difference between winning the league, getting any European place, or even relegation if 20 players get an ACL on Sept 1st.
*Not that I think we have breached any FFP.
Post by: PaulWinch again on April 08, 2024, 09:52:39 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on April 08, 2024, 10:45:28 PM
I don’t think we’ve breached, but I suspect we need to take action to ensure we don’t.
I guess it depends on the deductibles doesn't it? If they are quite substantial, then I think we could be the right side of it. If not, then that £120m loss last year could prove to be problematic until it goes off the 3 year cycle (if FFP remains in place that long) couldn't it?
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 09, 2024, 07:57:33 AM
The big mistake appears to be them not deciding a fixed tariff for each breach and instead carry out individual hearings.
A complete mess.
Post by: sid1964 on April 09, 2024, 08:01:08 AM
Post by: frank black on April 09, 2024, 08:12:43 AM
Are the current FFP rules about to be replaced luxury tax rules as opposed to losing points?
Indeed, that’ll be interesting. What value is punitive enough to put off the mega rich? What will happen to the proceeds raised? Will enough clubs agree?
If done incorrectly, It doesn't achieve the objectives of FFP IMO. Those with the deepest pockets or highest attitude to risk will prosper and potentially risk their clubs future.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 09, 2024, 08:18:26 AM
It’s just 1 of several proposals being discussed, there is no indication that it will come into effect as Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas.Are the current FFP rules about to be replaced luxury tax rules as opposed to losing points?
Indeed, that’ll be interesting. What value is punitive enough to put off the mega rich? What will happen to the proceeds raised? Will enough clubs agree?
If done incorrectly, It doesn't achieve the objectives of FFP IMO. Those with the deepest pockets or highest attitude to risk will prosper and potentially risk their clubs future.
Post by: LeeS on April 09, 2024, 09:01:14 AM
Post by: sid1964 on April 09, 2024, 09:58:19 AM
Re the scrapped/deferred/suspended plans for the North Stand -
Just been having a read,I know don't believe everything in the press, but it's stating that Everton and the Premier league are at loggerheads over their new stadium.
Everton are arguing that the cost shouldn't be included in PSR, whereas the Premier league are arguing that it should. Maybe that's the reason we've reined back until we see how this turns out, especially given our reported financial losses?
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will say stadium costs shouldn't count, like Spuds, Arsenal, Liverpool, but it's definitely food for thought.
Post by: Ads on April 09, 2024, 10:02:20 AM
Post by: Risso on April 09, 2024, 10:13:30 AM
Read this elsewhere - is this correct with regards to the new points deduction for Everton?
Re the scrapped/deferred/suspended plans for the North Stand -
Just been having a read,I know don't believe everything in the press, but it's stating that Everton and the Premier league are at loggerheads over their new stadium.
Everton are arguing that the cost shouldn't be included in PSR, whereas the Premier league are arguing that it should. Maybe that's the reason we've reined back until we see how this turns out, especially given our reported financial losses?
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will say stadium costs shouldn't count, like Spuds, Arsenal, Liverpool, but it's definitely food for thought.
I've read the commission decision, and it looks like Everton were taking the piss over what they were counting as "stadium costs". They were trying to capitalise some wages for example, of the sales and marketing team who were flogging boxes in the new stadium. I don't think this had any bearing at all on our decision to stop the North Stand rebuild.
Post by: Mister E on April 09, 2024, 10:27:04 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/09/premier-league-psr-profitability-sustainability-rules.
Doesn't address the related issue of Citeh's charges, which - for many people - is an elephant in the room that needs to be dealt with before taking PSR seriously.
Post by: Nev on April 09, 2024, 10:38:38 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 09, 2024, 10:38:56 AM
Read this elsewhere - is this correct with regards to the new points deduction for Everton?You also heard that Man City's charges were for the grass being too long and the changing rooms being the wrong shape. Either you need to stop being so gullible or get better sources of information.
Re the scrapped/deferred/suspended plans for the North Stand -
Just been having a read,I know don't believe everything in the press, but it's stating that Everton and the Premier league are at loggerheads over their new stadium.
Everton are arguing that the cost shouldn't be included in PSR, whereas the Premier league are arguing that it should. Maybe that's the reason we've reined back until we see how this turns out, especially given our reported financial losses?
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will say stadium costs shouldn't count, like Spuds, Arsenal, Liverpool, but it's definitely food for thought.
Post by: paul_e on April 09, 2024, 11:06:03 AM
No the first deduction is indexed to a loan for around £10m they took out, which Everton say was for the new stadium, but it was prior to planning permission being taken out.
Didn't they load some interest from other loans onto the stadium costs as well?
Either way they were charged for putting expenses against the new stadium that the panel didn't think were correct and that therefore needed to be added to PSR which tipped them over the limit.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 13, 2024, 03:40:50 PM
Quote
In March they reported a pre-tax loss of £90m, having lost £121m the previous year. However, in figures published by Companies House, it is now clear the losses would have been even higher without the sale of hotel buildings to Blueco 22 Properties Ltd, a subsidiary of parent company Blueco 22 Ltd, which led to a profit for the club of £76.5m.
I realise we have done similar a few years ago, but I thought they had tightened up those rules since. Obviously not.
Post by: AV82EC on April 13, 2024, 03:59:53 PM
Seems Chelsea would have made a massive loss if hotel property hadn't been flogged to another company. Good for that company investing to help Chelsea. I reckon Todd Boehly must thank the owner of it, a certain *checks notes* Todd Boehly.QuoteIn March they reported a pre-tax loss of £90m, having lost £121m the previous year. However, in figures published by Companies House, it is now clear the losses would have been even higher without the sale of hotel buildings to Blueco 22 Properties Ltd, a subsidiary of parent company Blueco 22 Ltd, which led to a profit for the club of £76.5m.
I realise we have done similar a few years ago, but I thought they had tightened up those rules since. Obviously not.
I don’t see why they’d need to tighten the rules as long as the transaction is for fair value.
Post by: Lastfootstamper on April 16, 2024, 07:46:34 PM
Post by: DB on April 16, 2024, 09:22:02 PM
It would appear it's not cleared the PL adjudicators yet, 9 months on. Apologies for having to include Jim White
Quite interesting. Not a ‘clash’ as the title suggested though, fookin TalkSport.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on April 16, 2024, 09:25:00 PM
Post by: Tokyo Sexwhale on April 17, 2024, 02:48:50 AM
It's something I'm still a bit uneasy about; especially should our current owners ever decide to leave - even if that's a long way into the future.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 17, 2024, 05:43:44 AM
Didn't we do the same thing by selling Villa Park to another of Nassef's companies?Not necessarily, if we got a valuation that justified the amount paid then all is fine. It probably helped that we went from the EFL to the PL at the same time.
It's something I'm still a bit uneasy about; especially should our current owners ever decide to leave - even if that's a long way into the future.
It’s quite obvious that Chelsea did not get a valuation and the sale of the Hotels are not fair market value.
The PL have got themselves into such a mess with this, that they are going to spend a lot of time and money defending law suits or they are going to have to scrap the whole thing.
I am not sure if that would then bring them into conflict with UEFA.
Post by: Dazvillain on April 17, 2024, 08:50:07 AM
https://theathletic.com/5419150/2024/04/17/psr-premier-league-transfers/?source=user_shared_article
Post by: chrisw1 on April 17, 2024, 12:45:13 PM
They'll undoubtedly have valuations. Whether they stand up to scrutiny is another matter. And giving the income back to the club through a management contract also needs to be looked at.Didn't we do the same thing by selling Villa Park to another of Nassef's companies?Not necessarily, if we got a valuation that justified the amount paid then all is fine. It probably helped that we went from the EFL to the PL at the same time.
It's something I'm still a bit uneasy about; especially should our current owners ever decide to leave - even if that's a long way into the future.
It’s quite obvious that Chelsea did not get a valuation and the sale of the Hotels are not fair market value.
The PL have got themselves into such a mess with this, that they are going to spend a lot of time and money defending law suits or they are going to have to scrap the whole thing.
I am not sure if that would then bring them into conflict with UEFA.
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 03:25:24 PM
Quote
Premier League clubs agree in principle for spending cap known as anchoring to TV earnings of bottom club. Understood Man City, Man Utd, Villa voted against and Chelsea abstained
Martyn Ziegler in The Times.
Post by: olaftab on April 29, 2024, 03:26:32 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on April 29, 2024, 03:30:06 PM
Post by: Drummond on April 29, 2024, 03:30:39 PM
Post by: LeeS on April 29, 2024, 03:32:49 PM
Post by: Ads on April 29, 2024, 03:35:39 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on April 29, 2024, 03:44:21 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/Bc5v8N2/Screenshot-20240429-154258-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Bc5v8N2)
Might give a better understanding
Personally im in favor of this
Post by: Goldenballs on April 29, 2024, 03:44:29 PM
Post by: Risso on April 29, 2024, 03:46:01 PM
Bjorn Schuurmans our new club secretary.
He's a tax lawyer who's been the head of Nas's family office for the last 8 years.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 29, 2024, 03:47:48 PM
Bjorn Schuurmans our new club secretary.
He's a tax lawyer who's been the head of Nas's family office for the last 8 years.
He sounds like a laugh.
Post by: andrew08 on April 29, 2024, 03:48:45 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on April 29, 2024, 03:50:32 PM
This will massively will help newly promoted clubs i think.
Suprised newcastle voted in favour of it
Post by: aev on April 29, 2024, 03:51:02 PM
Post by: LeeB on April 29, 2024, 03:52:33 PM
Bjorn Schuurmans our new club secretary.
He's a tax lawyer who's been the head of Nas's family office for the last 8 years.
He sounds like a laugh.
He like some fancy foreign underwear.
Post by: Lsvilla on April 29, 2024, 03:53:21 PM
Post by: aev on April 29, 2024, 03:59:04 PM
Which is good, as ours is miles behind the "top" clubs.
Post by: LeeB on April 29, 2024, 04:07:46 PM
K Maguire saying that commercial income becomes an irrelevance in terms of a clubs ability to spend.
Which is good, as ours is miles behind the "top" clubs.
"Bye Chris!"
Post by: olaftab on April 29, 2024, 04:08:28 PM
If we're playing in Europe we'll still need to abide by UEFA rules which restrict spending to (I think) 70% of turnover. So that rule will stop us spending anything like £0.5bn pa.If??
Post by: Lsvilla on April 29, 2024, 04:10:32 PM
Haha. When. Obvs.If we're playing in Europe we'll still need to abide by UEFA rules which restrict spending to (I think) 70% of turnover. So that rule will stop us spending anything like £0.5bn pa.If??
Post by: Risso on April 29, 2024, 04:23:51 PM
Bjorn Schuurmans our new club secretary.
He's a tax lawyer who's been the head of Nas's family office for the last 8 years.
He sounds like a laugh.
I've done a very similar job. As the great Mr B. Green esquire once advised on this forum "make youself indespensable to very rich people."
Post by: cdward on April 29, 2024, 04:30:13 PM
I only noticed that Naseef Sawiris nationality is Belgian. Did i miss this before, i always understood he was Egyptian?
Post by: Demitri_C on April 29, 2024, 04:32:53 PM
Im all for this as the money in the game has become a joke in the game.
Post by: Drummond on April 29, 2024, 04:33:36 PM
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on April 29, 2024, 04:40:43 PM
https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Yeah, this was my reaction. If our plan is to stay in Europe then it's their rules we need to keep an eye on as well. In terms of wages, those chasing clubs would still have to be wary of what they are doing though on the off chase they did attain European football. It would be the dog catching the car.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 29, 2024, 04:42:15 PM
https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
I cant read that because Twatter wants to force me to have an account with them to be able to read more than the one post in a thread.
And fuck Twatter because fuck that twat Musk.
So thanks for simplifying it down... 👍
Post by: Edvard Remberg on April 29, 2024, 04:43:00 PM
Post by: aev on April 29, 2024, 04:46:28 PM
The 70%/85% are UEFA numbers presumably and therefore weren’t up for discussion today?
Post by: olaftab on April 29, 2024, 04:47:16 PM
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.Not really. We can spend £190M, £170M and £150 on transfers for the next 3 season, more than enough I reckon.
The notion that clubs outside Europe can spend £400M is just a fictitious figure as I can not see any club other than Newcastle maybe being able to spend that much and even if newcastle do it has to be from their earnings and that's not possible for them just yet. To earn more they need to play in Europe and there we have the Catch 22.
Post by: olaftab on April 29, 2024, 04:48:55 PM
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
The proposed limit for the Premier League is a hard limit figure, so it'll be at least 4 times the amount of club revenue for the bottom team in the Premier League from TV money and possibly commercial revenue. This will also a cap for transfers, wages and agent fees #AVFC (2/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
So for example, if it was in place this year, every Premier League team could spend up to £466m on transfers, wages and agent fees, as that was 4 and a half times the total revenue of the bottom club from last season #AVFC (3/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
Here comes the issue. If you're in Europe, you have to abide by UEFA's profit and sustainability rules as well as the Premier League's. And this is where #AVFC are now at a huge disadvantage compared to every other team in the league (4/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
UEFA profit and sustainability rules are based off the percentages of the individual club's revenue. So its 90% of a club's revenue for 2023/24, 80% for 2024/25 and then 70% from 2025/26 onwards. This percentage is for player and coach wages, transfers and agent fees #AVFC (5/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
For example #AVFC's revenue was £218m last year. So theoretically, they would be able to spend £196.2m in 23/24, £174.4m in 24/25 and £152.6m in 25/26 onwards on transfers, wages and agent fees if they're in UEFA competition for the season and didn't increase their revenue (6/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
The main issue is if you're in Europe, you have to abide by UEFA's profit and sustainability rules as well as the Premier League's. The Big Six won't have an issue, as they already get loads of income to cover both UEFA's and the Premier League's regulations #AVFC (7/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
#CFC abstained and #MCFC voted against because they will now either have to sell or reduce their wages or get more sponsorship. #MUFC voted against as they would want to spend more than the proposed cap. #NUFC have Saudi sponsors and London clubs have big revenue #AVFC (8/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
Which means that clubs outside of Europe can spend at least £400m a season on transfers, wages and agent fees whereas #AVFC can only spend 80% of their club income for 2024/25 (currently £174.4m) and then 70% from 2025/26 onwards (currently £152.6m) (9/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
There's basically a £300m black hole that we can't spend if we don't want to fall foul to UEFA's profit and sustainability rules and either get a financial punishment or get banned from Europe for a year or two #AVFC (10/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
I personally believe there's 2 reasons why the Premier League clubs are lobbying for this. One is so that all clubs can spend money without having to sell their best players, as if we just adopted UEFA's rules, if any of the "lesser named" clubs want to invest #AVFC (11/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
They'd have to sell their best players (#AFCB with Solanke, #CPFC with Eze, #WWFC with Neto etc.) And the other is so that we don't get a debacle again like this season with the likes of Everton and Forest getting points deductions and tainting the Premier League #AVFC (12/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
And also, because the Premier League threshold is so high, teams can just put all their transfer fees on one banksheet and not amortise the fee and carry it over to a European season to comply with UEFA's profit and sustainability rules #AVFC (13/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
So even though #AVFC have very wealthy owners in Sawiris and Edens and would more than likely be prepared to bankroll £400m into the football club for a couple of seasons, they can't, because we are already in Europe and have to comply with UEFA's rules #AVFC (14/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
In fact, it might be in #AVFC's best interests to finish outside of Europe next season, as they'd be able to invest £400m+ and not be subject to UEFA's rules. But because Villa qualified too early, we are hamstrung and clubs outside of Europe can spend £200m+ more than us (15/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
56m
In summary the new proposed Premier League rules are fine. Its the UEFA ones that hurt us the most. Because just as we are on the rise, teams below us now have the opportunity to invest much more money than us and overtake us at the first time of asking #AVFC (16/16)
Post by: jon collett on April 29, 2024, 04:53:50 PM
So excessive spending is only ok if revenue is huge!
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 29, 2024, 04:54:06 PM
I think the new rules come into play for 25/26 season.
If it gets voted for fully in June/July.
Post by: The Edge on April 29, 2024, 04:59:05 PM
I don’t think this is right. There is a limit in spending against turnover. 70 in Europe and 85 domesticallySo basically Man Yoo will dominate football again in the near future because their revenue/potential revenue will dwarf other clubs?
So excessive spending is only ok if revenue is huge!
Post by: Ads on April 29, 2024, 05:02:40 PM
I don’t think this is right. There is a limit in spending against turnover. 70 in Europe and 85 domesticallySo basically Man Yoo will dominate football again in the near future because their revenue/potential revenue will dwarf other clubs?
So excessive spending is only ok if revenue is huge!
They already spend more than anybody else and they're absolutely shite.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 29, 2024, 05:07:35 PM
Obviously they will be trying to get revenue up over the next 12 months.
Post by: Footy-Vill on April 29, 2024, 05:15:13 PM
Post by: Footy-Vill on April 29, 2024, 05:18:29 PM
Really that's the term to be most aware of.
FFP isn't the term and PSR is the term which stand for profit and sustainability.
SCCR rules will be shadowing PSR next season.
Should we update the thread title or do we rather have a new one?
The main thing is making aware it's rules regarding control ratio of Squad Cost.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 29, 2024, 05:31:28 PM
For example #AVFC's revenue was £218m last year. So theoretically, they would be able to spend £196.2m in 23/24, £174.4m in 24/25 and £152.6m in 25/26 onwards on transfers, wages and agent fees if they're in UEFA competition for the season and didn't increase their revenue (6/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
There's basically a £300m black hole that we can't spend if we don't want to fall foul to UEFA's profit and sustainability rules and either get a financial punishment or get banned from Europe for a year or two #AVFC (10/16)
Kurt
@K__AVFC
·
However, in 24/25, we will be getting Champions League money, so for that season we can add another, what?
£100M/£150M, or whatever it is over the season.
Is that correct, or am I thinking too simply...
Post by: Nev on April 29, 2024, 05:39:45 PM
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 05:44:20 PM
However, in 24/25, we will be getting Champions League money, so for that season we can add another, what?
£100M/£150M, or whatever it is over the season.
Is that correct, or am I thinking too simply...
Why would you be adding £100-150m?
If we got to the quarter-finals (which is hardly a given) we'd make around £50m. If we don't make it out of the inital stages, we'd get around £20m.
Post by: paul_e on April 29, 2024, 05:46:12 PM
Whilst there's an element that links to turnover (be it within the league or from UEFA) than I'd prefer the cap to be lower than the 4.5x/5x that is being suggested. That's still a figure that would allow a handful of clubs to spend significantly more than anyone else.
On 2023 figures it would allow Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Tottenham to spend the full £450m (assuming 4.5x) but would limit a club like Fulham or Brighton to less than half that and the relegation battlers would be even further behind. Obviouslyh those clubs have higher wages but they're all operating a lower wages to turnover % than most of the rest of the league (who have seen wage costs rise because of the excessive contracts offered by the sky 6). If it went instead to something like 3-3.5x those clubs would have to consider cutting costs to be able to fund further investment, which would be much better for the competitiveness of the league and would only really impact the clubs who have spent the last decade building an unassailable financial advantage.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 29, 2024, 06:11:33 PM
However, in 24/25, we will be getting Champions League money, so for that season we can add another, what?
£100M/£150M, or whatever it is over the season.
Is that correct, or am I thinking too simply...
Why would you be adding £100-150m?
If we got to the quarter-finals (which is hardly a given) we'd make around £50m. If we don't make it out of the inital stages, we'd get around £20m.
I will be honest, I have no idea how much you get in Champions League, but always assumed its a fair bit cos its the so called "promised land".
If your numbers are correct, & I have no reason to question them, it's not as financially rewarding as I thought.
But lets say we get to the quarters, we would add 70% of that to what we can spend, so thats an extra (purely guessing cos my math is shit), an extra £40M to what we can spend within that cap.
Is that correct, or is that chap from Twitter adding Champs League money into his figures?
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 06:21:29 PM
However, in 24/25, we will be getting Champions League money, so for that season we can add another, what?
£100M/£150M, or whatever it is over the season.
Is that correct, or am I thinking too simply...
Why would you be adding £100-150m?
If we got to the quarter-finals (which is hardly a given) we'd make around £50m. If we don't make it out of the inital stages, we'd get around £20m.
I will be honest, I have no idea how much you get in Champions League, but always assumed its a fair bit cos its the so called "promised land".
If your numbers are correct, & I have no reason to question them, it's not as financially rewarding as I thought.
Back in the day, when you didn't get £100m just for existing in the Premier League, it was.
Nowadays, it's still a huge amount of money. But the dynamic is no longer Villa and Spurs complaining that they can't compete with Liverpool and Arsenal for players without Champions League money, it's Dortmund and Milan complaining that they can't compete with Palace and Fulham for players now they have the Premier League money.
Post by: paul_e on April 29, 2024, 06:28:12 PM
UEFA prize money increased by £46m as part of an overall increase of £106m
I'd guess some of that will be unrelated but something like £75m will be directly related to being in the Champions League. With the upcoming format changes I'd guess the £20m figure Dave gave is a bit out of date a well.
Not a fortune but still a significant increase in turnover for us.
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 06:54:02 PM
I'd guess some of that will be unrelated but something like £75m will be directly related to being in the Champions League. With the upcoming format changes I'd guess the £20m figure Dave gave is a bit out of date a well.
I took my figures from here (https://www.givemesport.com/football-champions-league-prize-money/).
Which says next season will be £15.9m prize money for competing in the league phase, with £0.6m per draw and £1.8m per win.
So with the assumption that if you're going out in the early stages you're probably not winning too many games to get the prize money for the wins, I gave it a charitable £20m.
Post by: Footy-Vill on April 29, 2024, 06:55:51 PM
Post by: paul_e on April 29, 2024, 06:59:14 PM
I'd guess some of that will be unrelated but something like £75m will be directly related to being in the Champions League. With the upcoming format changes I'd guess the £20m figure Dave gave is a bit out of date a well.
I took my figures from here (https://www.givemesport.com/football-champions-league-prize-money/).
Which says next season will be £15.9m prize money for competing in the league phase, with £0.6m per draw and £1.8m per win.
So with the assumption that if you're going out in the early stages you're probably not winning too many games to get the prize money for the wins, I gave it a charitable £20m.
but that doesn't include extra commercial or matchday income or any extras from sponsors.
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 29, 2024, 06:59:37 PM
However, in 24/25, we will be getting Champions League money, so for that season we can add another, what?
£100M/£150M, or whatever it is over the season.
Is that correct, or am I thinking too simply...
Why would you be adding £100-150m?
If we got to the quarter-finals (which is hardly a given) we'd make around £50m. If we don't make it out of the inital stages, we'd get around £20m.
I will be honest, I have no idea how much you get in Champions League, but always assumed its a fair bit cos its the so called "promised land".
If your numbers are correct, & I have no reason to question them, it's not as financially rewarding as I thought.
Back in the day, when you didn't get £100m just for existing in the Premier League, it was.
Nowadays, it's still a huge amount of money. But the dynamic is no longer Villa and Spurs complaining that they can't compete with Liverpool and Arsenal for players without Champions League money, it's Dortmund and Milan complaining that they can't compete with Palace and Fulham for players now they have the Premier League money.
Fair enough. 👍
Post by: Villatillidie25 on April 29, 2024, 07:02:51 PM
I'd guess some of that will be unrelated but something like £75m will be directly related to being in the Champions League. With the upcoming format changes I'd guess the £20m figure Dave gave is a bit out of date a well.
I took my figures from here (https://www.givemesport.com/football-champions-league-prize-money/).
Which says next season will be £15.9m prize money for competing in the league phase, with £0.6m per draw and £1.8m per win.
So with the assumption that if you're going out in the early stages you're probably not winning too many games to get the prize money for the wins, I gave it a charitable £20m.
I think you’ll get more than that when you factor in match day revenue, sponsorship and tv money. Isn’t the group stage meant to be worth £50m give or take.
I don’t mind the % threshold changing for European (70%) and teams not in Europe (85%) but why isn’t there a ratchet system based on the competition you’re in. Finishing in the UEL or UECL places is now a penalty, not a reward as you can no longer spend as much money the following season and the prize money etc doesn’t offset the shortfall. Seems mental to me.
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 07:03:07 PM
I'd guess some of that will be unrelated but something like £75m will be directly related to being in the Champions League. With the upcoming format changes I'd guess the £20m figure Dave gave is a bit out of date a well.
I took my figures from here (https://www.givemesport.com/football-champions-league-prize-money/).
Which says next season will be £15.9m prize money for competing in the league phase, with £0.6m per draw and £1.8m per win.
So with the assumption that if you're going out in the early stages you're probably not winning too many games to get the prize money for the wins, I gave it a charitable £20m.
but that doesn't include extra commercial or matchday income or any extras from sponsors.
I didn't suggest that it did.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 29, 2024, 07:06:23 PM
Are we......the baddies now?Not exactly great company we are keeping on this issue.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 29, 2024, 07:11:12 PM
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 07:15:12 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 29, 2024, 07:17:08 PM
I'd guess some of that will be unrelated but something like £75m will be directly related to being in the Champions League. With the upcoming format changes I'd guess the £20m figure Dave gave is a bit out of date a well.
I took my figures from here (https://www.givemesport.com/football-champions-league-prize-money/).
Which says next season will be £15.9m prize money for competing in the league phase, with £0.6m per draw and £1.8m per win.
So with the assumption that if you're going out in the early stages you're probably not winning too many games to get the prize money for the wins, I gave it a charitable £20m.
but that doesn't include extra commercial or matchday income or any extras from sponsors.
I didn't suggest that it did.
But then being in the Champs league would be closer to 50m you would expect. I'm pretty sure the figure bandied around for Newcastle was about 35Mil, but that is two less games and I'm assuming the new format has higher pay. And 2 more games if we make the top 24 as well.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on April 29, 2024, 07:26:55 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 29, 2024, 07:45:47 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was a thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
Post by: paul_e on April 29, 2024, 07:48:15 PM
But then being in the Champs league would be closer to 50m you would expect. I'm pretty sure the figure bandied around for Newcastle was about 35Mil, but that is two less games and I'm assuming the new format has higher pay. And 2 more games if we make the top 24 as well.
Yep, and the comment that started this was about turnover not prize money so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume everything should be included.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 29, 2024, 07:57:15 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 08:14:13 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
While I was Googling to find something as authoritative as possible, I came across one particularly egregious bit of click-bait along the lines of "Conference League final worth £15m prize money for West Ham"
small print - "because if they win that means they qualify for the Europa League next season which they'll get around £13m from"
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 29, 2024, 08:16:33 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Yeah, I remember reading what I mentioned as well.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 29, 2024, 08:17:52 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Yeah, I remember reading what I mentioned as well.
lol
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 29, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Yeah, I remember reading what I mentioned as well.
Congratulations.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 29, 2024, 08:51:40 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Yeah, I remember reading what I mentioned as well.
Congratulations.
Thanks. They got £13m in prize money alone. The stat I read included broadcast income on top. But not extra payments from sponsors, and not gate receipts. Maybe all that added up to minus £1,000,000.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 29, 2024, 10:14:49 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Yeah, I remember reading what I mentioned as well.
Congratulations.
Thanks. They got £13m in prize money alone. The stat I read included broadcast income on top. But not extra payments from sponsors, and not gate receipts. Maybe all that added up to minus £1,000,000.
God almighty, why on earth are you getting so snipey these days.
Chill the fuck out, why not.
Post by: Smithy on April 29, 2024, 10:16:20 PM
We can work out the prize money we'll earn easily enough from results (could be anything from £20m to £50m I guess), but all the extra commercial revenue? Who knows. There'll be full houses at VP (with the new exec seating options probably). I would imagine most of our sponsors have some sort of clause that means they pay more if we're in the Champions League. There could be some entirely new sponsors for the Champions League games. There is the extra sales of shirts and other stuff that simply comes from being successful on the pitch and in the world's biggest club competition. The new Adidas deal might have some extra performance-related bonuses. Not to mention all the new fans (and their £) that we'll attract from the local area who'll have their head turned by us playing in the Champions League, but who might not have been bothered when we were in the Championship.
It all adds up.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 29, 2024, 10:41:26 PM
Why would we be against that, I wonder?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 29, 2024, 10:47:13 PM
I think we’d make more than £20m from winning the Conference League. I’m pretty sure West Ham did.
Was around £12m total prize money that West Ham won. Plus all the extra match-day income etc.
There was thing where UEFA broke down winnings/TV money allocated. There was an entry that said something like UECL money allocated to English clubs - which was only West Ham of course - €20-something million.
It was definitely around 12m, no more than that, remember reading it.
Yeah, I remember reading what I mentioned as well.
Congratulations.
Thanks. They got £13m in prize money alone. The stat I read included broadcast income on top. But not extra payments from sponsors, and not gate receipts. Maybe all that added up to minus £1,000,000.
God almighty, why on earth are you getting so snipey these days.
Chill the fuck out, why not.
Your congratulations were snipey.
Chill the fuck out.
Post by: Dave on April 29, 2024, 10:47:41 PM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?
https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 29, 2024, 10:49:02 PM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 29, 2024, 11:45:39 PM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
According to Sky, an 85% of revenue limit for clubs not in Europe will apply.
As one of the replies to the thread states, ‘you’ve spent all day on this thread and it’s completely wrong’.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 30, 2024, 01:10:15 AM
Are we......the baddies now?
Don't think so. I will readily admit that I don't fully understand all of this, but I think we are simply looking after our interests given that we will be the ones disadvantaged the most out of the teams currently around us.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 30, 2024, 01:26:18 AM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Well exactly. So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit. They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 30, 2024, 01:37:00 AM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Well exactly. So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit. They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.
The increase in revenue would probably cover it.
Post by: ozzjim on April 30, 2024, 05:58:10 AM
The 85% vs 70% rule seems to be setting sides up to fail too. The UEFA PSR value at 70% seems to be a bar to try and slow EPL spending and being them back to earth, which ironically isn't needed when many of the richest clubs in the prem have spent like utter idiots for 3-4 years now so it really doesn't matter. The Premier league then allowing 15% higher spending will surely then only see EPL clubs banned from Europe before long as they break the rules, or unable to spend a penny the summer they qualify, indeed having to sell. All very very odd, I would imagine Villa voted no because none of it makes much sense. The ideal seems to be feast to famine, top 4 one year, 8th the next.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 30, 2024, 06:14:30 AM
I'm really struggling with this one, because the 15% gap in the 2 figures for any club outside United, maybe Chelsea and Man City isn't going to get anywhere close to £550m ish limit that this new cap is going to enforce. So yesterday we voted against something that realistically we are not going to be able to breach anyway even if we did spend 85%.
The 85% vs 70% rule seems to be setting sides up to fail too. The UEFA PSR value at 70% seems to be a bar to try and slow EPL spending and being them back to earth, which ironically isn't needed when many of the richest clubs in the prem have spent like utter idiots for 3-4 years now so it really doesn't matter. The Premier league then allowing 15% higher spending will surely then only see EPL clubs banned from Europe before long as they break the rules, or unable to spend a penny the summer they qualify, indeed having to sell. All very very odd, I would imagine Villa voted no because none of it makes much sense. The ideal seems to be feast to famine, top 4 one year, 8th the next.
I think they (the owners) fancy their chances of growing revenues to those levels. We already have to comply with the 70% rule to play in Europe anyway, so I doubt it’s that bit that bothers them.
Post by: Demitri_C on April 30, 2024, 06:46:11 AM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Well exactly. So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit. They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.
But then they would have to cut their revenue significantly the following season while in europe. I think its a good idea because thw clubs in europe (CL clubs especially) make most of the money and the clubs like palace everton and brentford don't ever get close to europe. Meanwhile thw clubs like amnure citeh get all that revenue and the gap grows.
Think this also stuffs teams like chelsea.
This way people spend more sensibley and its more competitive. Also gives newly promoted clubs a chance. I mean look at the three that came up all looking like they are gonna go down again.
The only thing thats missing is what's the punishments going to be? If its just big fines then teams will just pay the fine and ignore the rules
Post by: LeeS on April 30, 2024, 09:20:22 AM
The reality is, we've no idea how much Champions League would actually be worth to us - but I'll bet the club has a pretty good idea.
We can work out the prize money we'll earn easily enough from results (could be anything from £20m to £50m I guess), but all the extra commercial revenue? Who knows. There'll be full houses at VP (with the new exec seating options probably). I would imagine most of our sponsors have some sort of clause that means they pay more if we're in the Champions League. There could be some entirely new sponsors for the Champions League games. There is the extra sales of shirts and other stuff that simply comes from being successful on the pitch and in the world's biggest club competition. The new Adidas deal might have some extra performance-related bonuses. Not to mention all the new fans (and their £) that we'll attract from the local area who'll have their head turned by us playing in the Champions League, but who might not have been bothered when we were in the Championship.
It all adds up.
I agree with this Smithy. There are all sorts of fringe benefits for being in the ECL. Imagine the interest we'd have with a home game against Real Madrid... I would caveat this by saying our game on Thursday is our 7th European home fixture this season. All had good attendances. We may only get 4 next year if we go out at the group stage. The prize money may not cover the gap in that circumstance (because we wouldnt have won many games).
Post by: rob_bridge on April 30, 2024, 09:31:11 AM
Newcastle and ManU went out in group stages this year. The latter in a pretty ordinary group. Potential is for the impact on league form.
However like qualificaiton for conference league last season into this, on balance and mainly because we have Emery it is definitely good for us.
However be prepared that we may go out early and it may impact league form.
Post by: Drummond on April 30, 2024, 09:38:01 AM
The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.
We're in good hands.
Post by: PeterWithe on April 30, 2024, 09:39:29 AM
I only noticed that Naseef Sawiris nationality is Belgian. Did i miss this before, i always understood he was Egyptian?
Roman Abramovich has joint Israeli and Portugese nationality, I guess having an EU passport is advantageous to him. The rich don't have to adhere to the same rules.
Post by: Smithy on April 30, 2024, 09:44:20 AM
I don't get this effect on league form thing. We've done ok this season haven't we?
The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.
We're in good hands.
Indeed. I think you just need to look at the league table to see that Newcastle and Man Utd haven't been particularly good this season, and that's the reason they went out in the group stages. If Europe was having a negative effect on them, they both would have been in better form since going out. They haven't. They're just not that good.
I love that we have a no-excuses culture at the club, and Unai has shown this season that he is capable of getting us to compete domestically and in Europe. Whether he can do it with two domestic cup runs as well, who knows, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest he'll struggle with the demands on all fronts next season.
Post by: AV82EC on April 30, 2024, 09:45:21 AM
I don't get this effect on league form thing. We've done ok this season haven't we?
The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.
We're in good hands.
I think you hit on a good point re: Champs League being more taxing but if muscle memory is a thing then getting into the habit of playing midweek/weekend more frequently then our experiences from this year will stand us in good stead. Newcastle went into the CL this year utterly cold and suffered for it imv whereas our Conf League games were less intense and we’ve been able to adapt.
On your first point I think we’ve only lost once following a European fixture so it’s nonsense to suggest it’s effected us and there’s no reason to extrapolate that’ll change next year.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 30, 2024, 09:51:56 AM
Exactly, it means that those clubs with European ambitions are going to have to get very smart at Financial Planning.Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Well exactly. So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit. They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.
The increase in revenue would probably cover it.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 30, 2024, 09:54:00 AM
Being banned from European competition until you are in compliance.Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Well exactly. So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit. They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.
But then they would have to cut their revenue significantly the following season while in europe. I think its a good idea because thw clubs in europe (CL clubs especially) make most of the money and the clubs like palace everton and brentford don't ever get close to europe. Meanwhile thw clubs like amnure citeh get all that revenue and the gap grows.
Think this also stuffs teams like chelsea.
This way people spend more sensibley and its more competitive. Also gives newly promoted clubs a chance. I mean look at the three that came up all looking like they are gonna go down again.
The only thing thats missing is what's the punishments going to be? If its just big fines then teams will just pay the fine and ignore the rules
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 30, 2024, 09:57:22 AM
Post by: LeeB on April 30, 2024, 10:09:10 AM
Post by: pablo_picasso on April 30, 2024, 11:13:41 AM
I don't get this effect on league form thing. We've done ok this season haven't we?
The matches may be more taxing in the Champions League but our manager recently won the Europa and then got to the Semis of the Champions League the following season.
We're in good hands.
But tbf, playing Devils advocate, we only really played a decent side when we faced Lille.
We have slowed down the pace of our European games because we could.
We wont get as many opportunities to do that if we qualify for the Champs League as almost all of the games we could face in the Champions League will be stronger than Lille.
Post by: Risso on April 30, 2024, 11:19:08 AM
Post by: Ads on April 30, 2024, 11:21:26 AM
If we do qualify for the Champions League then we've got the entire summer to plan for it. We'll have Mings, Kamara, Buendia and Ramsey to return, which is one third of a very good Champions League side, plus whatever new additions we bring in.
Exactly, and a whole season to reflect on how well we kept the ball against a Man City or an Arsenal, the knowledge we can qualify for the Champions League and also the taste of silverware. Huge mentality changes. Add in additional players better than what we have, the return of really good players and we'll be improved. If Liverpool, Arsenal or Man City don't vastly improve then we have a chance at something unbelievable.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 30, 2024, 11:49:48 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on April 30, 2024, 11:51:35 AM
Apparently three clubs voted against this spending cap move today - Man United, Man City and us.
Why would we be against that, I wonder?https://x.com/K__AVFC/status/1784958583366389906?s=09
This thread explains why we may have voted against it.
In summary, PL teams can spend loads to get into Europe, but the ones in Europe already can't because of the UEFA FFP rules. So in theory, we're in Europe so can't spend next season. Newcastle, if they don't get in, can spend a shitload if cash without penalty for the season until they get in.
Makes it harder for us to stay in Europe basically.
Ah, thanks.
Jesus, though, what a fucking shitshow this whole subject is.
Well exactly. So let's say Newcastle didn't finish in a European spot, so they went out and spent up to the 85% Premier League limit. They then had a good season and finished in a European spot, only to then be subject to the 70% UEFA rule the following season.
The increase in revenue would probably cover it.
Apologies in advance, but does the UEFA cap apply to all of their competitons? Would the increase in revenue for being in the Europa or Conference League cover that? What is the timeframe to make up that revenue - would it have to be sorted for that next season?
Might have got this wrong, but let's say a club outside the European spots has a revenue of £210m, their 85% figure would be £178.5m and the 70% figure would be £147m wouldn't it? So, if they qualified for Europe that next season they would have to increase revenue to £255m to maintain that figure of £178.5m at 70%, so an increase in revenue of £45m?
Can't see how this doesn't do anything but protect the 'big clubs' who's enormous wage bills are already comfortably under that 70%?
Post by: chrisw1 on April 30, 2024, 12:17:51 PM
I am looking forward to challenging for the Title, not winning it but being there or there abouts deep into the season.Given what happened to Newcastle, I'd take remaining in the top 4, doing OK in the CL and ideally an FA cup run. Solid progress, retaining our best players and evolving the squad. If we can establish ourselves as a top 4-5 club over a few seasons we will start chipping away at that financial gap and world domination will inevitably follow.
Post by: Drummond on April 30, 2024, 12:27:26 PM
If we do qualify for the Champions League then we've got the entire summer to plan for it. We'll have Mings, Kamara, Buendia and Ramsey to return, which is one third of a very good Champions League side, plus whatever new additions we bring in.
Exactly, and a whole season to reflect on how well we kept the ball against a Man City or an Arsenal, the knowledge we can qualify for the Champions League and also the taste of silverware. Huge mentality changes. Add in additional players better than what we have, the return of really good players and we'll be improved. If Liverpool, Arsenal or Man City don't vastly improve then we have a chance at something unbelievable.
Yep, agreed, we'll already be far stronger next season without signing anyone.
Post by: Risso on April 30, 2024, 12:34:45 PM
Yep, agreed, we'll already be far stronger next season without signing anyone.
Obviously before three different players get ACL knack...
Post by: Smithy on April 30, 2024, 12:37:21 PM
I am looking forward to challenging for the Title, not winning it but being there or there abouts deep into the season.Given what happened to Newcastle, I'd take remaining in the top 4, doing OK in the CL and ideally an FA cup run. Solid progress, retaining our best players and evolving the squad. If we can establish ourselves as a top 4-5 club over a few seasons we will start chipping away at that financial gap and world domination will inevitably follow.
That's how I see it. I want a trophy, obviously, and would love to start with the Conference League this season, but our top 4 challenge has to become the 'norm' so we can establish ourselves in that group that is expected to challenge for the Champions League places every year. That doesn't happen after one year, so we'll probably need 3 or 4 seasons of regular European football and the top 4 challenges before we're considered by the footballing world to be "in that group", but this is an excellent start.
Come August, there will be eight teams with realistic ambitions of qualifying for the Champions League: Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, us, Man United, Chelsea, Tottenham, and Newcastle. Those teams are our competition moving forward. The top third of the league.
The main disadvantage we have is that the other 7 clubs have revenues far in excess of our own, so we need that first couple of years of regular European football to kick-start our catch-process on the commercial side. I have confidence Unai can deliver it, if we can find a way to back him financially.
Post by: Ads on April 30, 2024, 12:41:06 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 30, 2024, 12:58:24 PM
As for Manure, again I definitely don't think it was playing CL that caused it.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 30, 2024, 12:59:38 PM
Now guess who has a company called Fortress? None other than Wes Edens! Wes is the owner of the Fortress Investment Group. Go on, Wes, I dare you!
Post by: Risso on April 30, 2024, 01:03:09 PM
By the way, can we sell the naming rights to one of Wes's companies please, ie Fortress Investment group.
Fortress Villa Park for the win.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 30, 2024, 01:14:20 PM
Post by: Drummond on April 30, 2024, 01:45:07 PM
Ahem...By the way, can we sell the naming rights to one of Wes's companies please, ie Fortress Investment group.
Fortress Villa Park for the win.
Fortress Villa Park....... get the name changed for £30 Mil
It makes sense in so many ways.
then we can spend it on some proper players too
Ahem!
Post by: olaftab on April 30, 2024, 01:58:42 PM
And to our good fortune we have absolutely the right man in charge to do the planning.If we do qualify for the Champions League then we've got the entire summer to plan for it. We'll have Mings, Kamara, Buendia and Ramsey to return, which is one third of a very good Champions League side, plus whatever new additions we bring in.
Exactly, and a whole season to reflect on how well we kept the ball against a Man City or an Arsenal, the knowledge we can qualify for the Champions League and also the taste of silverware. Huge mentality changes. Add in additional players better than what we have, the return of really good players and we'll be improved. If Liverpool, Arsenal or Man City don't vastly improve then we have a chance at something unbelievable.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on April 30, 2024, 02:17:03 PM
Ahem...By the way, can we sell the naming rights to one of Wes's companies please, ie Fortress Investment group.
Fortress Villa Park for the win.Fortress Villa Park....... get the name changed for £30 Mil
It makes sense in so many ways.
then we can spend it on some proper players too
Ahem!
I knew someone said it a while back, I remember saying it would look great but then embarrassing if we lost a few in a row!
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 30, 2024, 02:29:37 PM
Ahem...By the way, can we sell the naming rights to one of Wes's companies please, ie Fortress Investment group.
Fortress Villa Park for the win.Fortress Villa Park....... get the name changed for £30 Mil
It makes sense in so many ways.
then we can spend it on some proper players too
Ahem!
Wasn't it you back then that questioned why would a finance guy that owns a NBA team in Wisconsin want to sponsor Villa Park? ;)
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 30, 2024, 02:49:05 PM
Ahem...By the way, can we sell the naming rights to one of Wes's companies please, ie Fortress Investment group.
Fortress Villa Park for the win.
I posted it first, far too long ago for me to find it. Unless someone beat me as well…
But anyway, if Small Heath can get away with giving themselves £10m a year for their naming rights, what could we give ourselves that would pass as fair value?
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 30, 2024, 03:18:56 PM
But anyway, if Small Heath can get away with giving themselves £10m a year for their naming rights, what could we give ourselves that would pass as fair value?
There is an argument that naming rights in the PL are undervalued compared to similar deals in the US. I think Man City115 get £19m a season (could be wrong) and the top PL clubs are valued at 3.5 times the bottom 6 of the PL, so that Sty value is extremely generous.
If it allows us to compete, at least in the short term, I'd have no problem with selling the naming rights of Villa Park. I'd also throw in the old Witton Lane stand into the deal for extra revenue.
Post by: Monty on April 30, 2024, 03:24:22 PM
But anyway, if Small Heath can get away with giving themselves £10m a year for their naming rights, what could we give ourselves that would pass as fair value?
There is an argument that naming rights in the PL are undervalued compared to similar deals in the US. I think Man City115 get £19m a season (could be wrong) and the top PL clubs are valued at 3.5 times the bottom 6 of the PL, so that Sty value is extremely generous.
If it allows us to compete, at least in the short term, I'd have no problem with selling the naming rights of Villa Park. I'd also throw in the old Witton Lane stand into the deal for extra revenue.
Depends who to. Have no desire to see Ollie Watkins banging them in at the Smoothie King Park.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 30, 2024, 03:42:29 PM
But anyway, if Small Heath can get away with giving themselves £10m a year for their naming rights, what could we give ourselves that would pass as fair value?
There is an argument that naming rights in the PL are undervalued compared to similar deals in the US. I think Man City115 get £19m a season (could be wrong) and the top PL clubs are valued at 3.5 times the bottom 6 of the PL, so that Sty value is extremely generous.
If it allows us to compete, at least in the short term, I'd have no problem with selling the naming rights of Villa Park. I'd also throw in the old Witton Lane stand into the deal for extra revenue.
Depends who to. Have no desire to see Ollie Watkins banging them in at the Smoothie King Park.
If somebody was to offer me free flights and tickets to see Frankie Beverly, the O'Jays and The Whispers at the Smoothie King Center next month, I wouldn't turn my nose up. The only problem I see is getting to Athens a couple of days later. Ideally the final would be in Athens, Georgia - far easier to get to from New Orleans.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 30, 2024, 04:08:06 PM
But anyway, if Small Heath can get away with giving themselves £10m a year for their naming rights, what could we give ourselves that would pass as fair value?
There is an argument that naming rights in the PL are undervalued compared to similar deals in the US. I think Man City115 get £19m a season (could be wrong) and the top PL clubs are valued at 3.5 times the bottom 6 of the PL, so that Sty value is extremely generous.
If it allows us to compete, at least in the short term, I'd have no problem with selling the naming rights of Villa Park. I'd also throw in the old Witton Lane stand into the deal for extra revenue.
They fudged it into more then just naming rights with the social media impressions crapness as well. I'm still waiting to see the EFL ruling on all that but it might not be until the money hits the books before they can act on it.
Post by: David_Nab on April 30, 2024, 04:28:19 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 30, 2024, 04:51:14 PM
I feel naming rights only work if you are building a new Stadium and it starts with that name .You can rename VP now but no one will every see it as anything other than VP which is why not much value in it.
I think the only value we’re talking about here really is how the owners can legally blag some more money into the club.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 30, 2024, 05:23:49 PM
I feel naming rights only work if you are building a new Stadium and it starts with that name .You can rename VP now but no one will every see it as anything other than VP which is why not much value in it.
I think the only value we’re talking about here really is how the owners can legally blag some more money into the club.
Exactly, Percy. The club can't keep on increasing the prices of season tickets and general matchday tickets to increase revenue.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 01, 2024, 03:57:11 AM
I feel naming rights only work if you are building a new Stadium and it starts with that name .You can rename VP now but no one will every see it as anything other than VP which is why not much value in it.
I think the only value we’re talking about here really is how the owners can legally blag some more money into the club.
Exactly, Percy. The club can't keep on increasing the prices of season tickets and general matchday tickets to increase revenue.
They can and they will mate, but that alone won’t be enough.
Post by: tomd2103 on May 04, 2024, 12:42:56 AM
I am looking forward to challenging for the Title, not winning it but being there or there abouts deep into the season.
Might seem a bit out there, but say the 85% Premier League spend cap is enforced and the 70% UEFA spend cap remains in place, it could potentially benefit clubs like ourselves to not play in Europe, unless it is in the Champions League with the extra revenue that would bring. We could be potentially better off having the 85% cap and challenging for domestic trophies than being in European competition.
The ptoblem with that is then of course you then qualify for Europe if you have domestic success, so you're back in that position again.
Post by: ADVILLAFAN on May 04, 2024, 08:44:30 AM
Now bear with me....
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 04, 2024, 08:47:35 AM
Post by: Simon Page on May 04, 2024, 01:35:21 PM
Between this and computerised ball technology in the other thread, I'm really hating football again. And it's not because I'm old cuz I'm not, honest.
Post by: Smithy on May 04, 2024, 01:57:07 PM
Are we better signing players on loan this summer and buying them next to avoid losses this year?
Depends if the loans have a fee, or not (and most do). Reports are for example that Zaniolo's loan fee was £4.25m.
The immediate FFP impact of signing a £25m player on a 5-year contract, or loaning one for a season with a £5m fee, is identical.
Post by: Baldy on May 07, 2024, 05:24:03 PM
Post by: lovejoy on May 07, 2024, 06:14:39 PM
Are we better signing players on loan this summer and buying them next to avoid losses this year?
Depends if the loans have a fee, or not (and most do). Reports are for example that Zaniolo's loan fee was £4.25m.
The immediate FFP impact of signing a £25m player on a 5-year contract, or loaning one for a season with a £5m fee, is identical.
A loan gives flexibility for future years as stated above you arent locked in whereas there is no resale value.
Post by: Smithy on May 07, 2024, 06:46:02 PM
Are we better signing players on loan this summer and buying them next to avoid losses this year?
Depends if the loans have a fee, or not (and most do). Reports are for example that Zaniolo's loan fee was £4.25m.
The immediate FFP impact of signing a £25m player on a 5-year contract, or loaning one for a season with a £5m fee, is identical.
A loan gives flexibility for future years as stated above you arent locked in whereas there is no resale value.
Oh yes, totally agree :-). I just thought the original question was related to our current position close to the FFP limit and what we could do "this summer". In that context, a loan fee of £5m or 5 year contract for £25m player have the same FFP impact in the short term.
Post by: PeterWithe on May 19, 2024, 09:26:44 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/may/18/aston-villa-back-in-big-time-on-their-own-merits
Post by: Olneythelonely on May 19, 2024, 11:03:51 AM
Post by: Nev on May 19, 2024, 11:09:45 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on May 19, 2024, 11:25:56 AM
The Guardian still going with the line that we will have to sell.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/may/18/aston-villa-back-in-big-time-on-their-own-merits
Again, it’s all assumptions based on the losses, without actually looking into the accounts or the FFP deductions. Nobody knows the real situation for this financial year except the club, who would be fucking stupid to leak it and undermine any negotiation if it were true.
They can’t credit little old Aston Villa getting into the top four and making it work, so they just assume it’s all going to backfire.
Like they assumed we’d ‘do a Fulham’ when we came up and spent money. And that playing in europe would fuck us in the league.
It’s just lazy journalism.
Post by: Pete3206 on May 19, 2024, 11:31:24 AM
Post by: Rigadon on May 19, 2024, 11:43:38 AM
The Guardian still going with the line that we will have to sell.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/may/18/aston-villa-back-in-big-time-on-their-own-merits
The tone of that article is fairly typical of the Guardian. The political coverage is usually engaging and interesting, but I’m increasingly annoyed by their football coverage.
Post by: Steve67 on May 19, 2024, 02:24:19 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on May 19, 2024, 02:29:00 PM
We are about to get over 50 mill in prize money for finishing 4th, is that not taken into account, given it is income?Of course it is, but not by some journalists though.
Post by: wince on May 19, 2024, 02:35:51 PM
It isn't Black Sabbath.Some will get paranoid though
Post by: KevinGage on May 19, 2024, 02:54:13 PM
We have to assume the NSWE know what they're doing until they prove otherwise.
They've given a pretty good impression of knowing what they're doing these past six years.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 19, 2024, 03:16:13 PM
If we were that tight up against the FFP wall I don't think we'd have signed a project player like Nemo @ Red Star Belgrade and possibly even Rogers.
We have to assume the NSWE know what they're doing until they prove otherwise.
They've given a pretty good impression of knowing what they're doing these past six years.
Alternatively they saw those deals as better value given the FFP concerns. Either way if Ned hits the ground running like Morgan that’ll be nice.
Post by: Somniloquism on May 19, 2024, 05:30:26 PM
If we were that tight up against the FFP wall I don't think we'd have signed a project player like Nemo @ Red Star Belgrade and possibly even Rogers.
We have to assume the NSWE know what they're doing until they prove otherwise.
They've given a pretty good impression of knowing what they're doing these past six years.
Alternatively they saw those deals as better value given the FFP concerns. Either way if Ned hits the ground running like Morgan that’ll be nice.
If he hits the ground it will probably because the ACL has given out.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 19, 2024, 09:11:49 PM
If we want to spend money, that’s true, right? Like most teams. I suppose Champions League qualification might have relieved some pressure on us to sell to balance the books.
I actually think that’s a decent write up. Captures the arc of the season well.
Post by: ASHTONVILLA on May 20, 2024, 10:11:09 AM
The Guardian still going with the line that we will have to sell.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/may/18/aston-villa-back-in-big-time-on-their-own-merits
The tone of that article is fairly typical of the Guardian. The political coverage is usually engaging and interesting, but I’m increasingly annoyed by their football coverage.
It's the opposite for me.
It's a leftist comic, but the footy coverage isn't too bad. I don't see much objectionable about the article, and it is very similar to one by Percy in the Telegraph and the coverage in the Athletic.
Who knows if they know anything, but the consensus does seem to be that we will need to flog a big player in the summer. Emery himself seemed to hint at the same recently, with comments along the lines of 'first we need to balance the books and then spend' or words to that effect.
I don't think I would be surprised if we sold one of Luiz and Ramsey (but not both), and maybe also Duran if a good offer comes in. If a 'swap' deal is on with Chelsea between Duran and Gallagher (Percy mentioned this recently) then I'd take it as well, and use Archer as back up for a season.
In any event, the team will be stronger next season with the returning players so long as we address the Kamara sized hole in the squad. It is clear that neither Iroegbunam or Dendonker can replace him adequately, so we need someone that can for the first half of the season at least. Maybe a loan and also buy a younger player so that next season we always have two options and le the loanee go at the end of the season.
Post by: Drummond on May 20, 2024, 10:46:16 PM
[New York Times]
Here.. https://twitter.com/FootyAccums/status/1792543295844880775?s=19
Fuck me.
Post by: Toronto Villa on May 21, 2024, 12:42:44 AM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on May 21, 2024, 12:46:40 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on May 21, 2024, 06:37:33 AM
Man City are either going to get off with it all or will suffer the softest of all penalties because it will be claimed the majority of the charges cannot be proved. It will be the most token of gestures if they get anything at all.I keep seeing this, but somehow the PL has got to reconcile any decision with the other 16 clubs and in particular Liverpool and Manure, you can probably throw Arsenal into the mix also.
The concern is that the sports media appear so complicit with the scandal and what looks like a huge cover up.
The reason it is taking so long is that the PL is unable to get an agreement between the other clubs and Citeh as to what the punishment should be.
Post by: Nev on May 21, 2024, 07:50:20 AM
But while states can own Football clubs there will be no level playing field. As much as the PL is a great league, from a competitive view, a team winning the title four times in row is far from healthy and the end of this season was as flat as you can imagine.
Post by: Smithy on May 21, 2024, 08:25:55 AM
Man City are either going to get off with it all or will suffer the softest of all penalties because it will be claimed the majority of the charges cannot be proved. It will be the most token of gestures if they get anything at all.I keep seeing this, but somehow the PL has got to reconcile any decision with the other 16 clubs and in particular Liverpool and Manure, you can probably throw Arsenal into the mix also.
The concern is that the sports media appear so complicit with the scandal and what looks like a huge cover up.
The reason it is taking so long is that the PL is unable to get an agreement between the other clubs and Citeh as to what the punishment should be.
I genuinely don't understand why they would be having difficulty agreeing a punishment. A year ago I could understand a lack of agreement over the punishment, maybe. But now? If ANY of the 115 charges is proven, and proves they actually went beyond the FFP limit when they shouldn't have, then the points deduction precedent is now right there and available. Everton and Forest have paved the way for Man City to be punished. It's the number of points that's in question, I guess?
My concern is that they could have all of these charges proven, and still probably get nothing more than a points deduction that guarantees mid-table, and they'd STILL qualify for Europe that season through a cup win. If they'd been docked 40 points this season, they'd still have finished 10th. Even a massive points deduction will mean their punishment will effectively be nothing more than one season where they can't fight for the title, and maybe one season outside the Champions League (unless they win it the season before, in which case they don't even get that punishment). If they win a domestic cup they'd still be in Europe, too.
I genuinely don't know how they make the punishment sufficient enough that it ends up being more than just a one-season 'blip'? It won't happen, but something that puts them back far enough that they have to rebuild within today's FFP framework, like the rest of us. Maybe each years offenses get taken in different premier league years? I believe the 115 charges span 9 years, so the points deductions are spread out over those 9 years, effectively making them uncompetitive for the decade in which they were cheating? It'll never happen, but nice to think that it might...
Post by: Rigadon on May 21, 2024, 08:38:23 AM
Post by: Goldenballs on May 21, 2024, 08:43:31 AM
Post by: rob_bridge on May 21, 2024, 08:44:38 AM
And not award to anyone else
Post by: sid1964 on May 21, 2024, 08:46:11 AM
Post by: Dave on May 21, 2024, 08:47:50 AM
Post by: Smithy on May 21, 2024, 09:02:02 AM
There is no way they are getting a 40 point deduction - just listened to an interesting discussion with Simon Jordan about the charges, he claims that only 5 - 10 charges are relevant
I'm guessing what he means is that a huge number of those 115 charges are to do with "not complying" or "not co-operating" with the investigation, or providing complete information when it was requested. It's not "here's 115 times Man City broke FFP spending limits".
I think they're charged with breaking the spending limit each year from 2015 to 2018, but then a large number of the charges are around HOW the breached the spending limit, such as not giving full details on how players/manager were paid (which might 20 instances, for example).
It's a bit like Trump facing 34 charges of fraud for the Stormy Daniels case, it all rests on one thing he did wrong, but then trying to hide it created lots of other potential offences.
Post by: Somniloquism on May 21, 2024, 09:58:14 AM
There is no way they are getting a 40 point deduction - just listened to an interesting discussion with Simon Jordan about the charges, he claims that only 5 - 10 charges are relevant
Makes a change from you believing the charges were about not supplying hot water to opposition players and leaving the grass too long which you "heard" previously I suppose.
Post by: Simon Page on May 21, 2024, 10:12:48 AM
Post by: LeeB on May 21, 2024, 10:15:46 AM
This has probably been mentioned, but isn't the effect of the financial doping similar to Red Bull in F1. They broke the rules and got a slap, but that rule-breaking led to their current dominance for which they've received no punishment.
See also athletes that receive doping bans but then benefit for years after from their increased strength.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 21, 2024, 12:00:43 PM
Post by: john e on May 21, 2024, 12:40:22 PM
But that Ben Johnson hundred metres was an unbelievable thing to watch and see at the time
Post by: rob_bridge on May 21, 2024, 12:53:54 PM
I know he was a massive cheat and all that
But that Ben Johnson hundred metres was an unbelievable thing to watch and see at the time
and under today's rules Calvin Smith is Olympic Champion
Post by: Jon Crofts on May 21, 2024, 01:25:20 PM
I know he was a massive cheat and all that
But that Ben Johnson hundred metres was an unbelievable thing to watch and see at the time
Same goes for Lying Lance, watching him climb mountains and blow everyone away was awe inspiring at the time.
That said his titles were all stripped, there's not a chance City get a points reduction let alone have titles and cups negated, absolutely zero.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 21, 2024, 02:57:11 PM
As an aside I just read somewhere that our position in the league means we have earned £164.4m from PL and TV money this year. It is only £4m behind Liverpool. Taking last season's earnings, that is a rise of around £15m.
There’s an extra £15m on the turnover. Add in a plus 30% rise in spectators and UECL prize and broadcast money and my feeling that we have hit a quarter of a billion this season is looking good. £300m next year I reckon.
Post by: lovejoy on May 21, 2024, 03:27:32 PM
I know he was a massive cheat and all that
But that Ben Johnson hundred metres was an unbelievable thing to watch and see at the time
Same goes for Lying Lance, watching him climb mountains and blow everyone away was awe inspiring at the time.
That said his titles were all stripped, there's not a chance City get a points reduction let alone have titles and cups negated, absolutely zero.
In the end the gave up giving the runners up in Lance's wins the glory as drug taking was so rife in cycling at the time it was difficult to find anyone clean!
Post by: frank black on May 21, 2024, 03:29:21 PM
As an aside I just read somewhere that our position in the league means we have earned £164.4m from PL and TV money this year. It is only £4m behind Liverpool. Taking last season's earnings, that is a rise of around £15m.
There’s an extra £15m on the turnover. Add in a plus 30% rise in spectators and UECL prize and broadcast money and my feeling that we have hit a quarter of a billion this season is looking good. £300m next year I reckon.
Only if they convince me to pay the upgrade for my seat, with an all you can eat finger buffet and bottomless beers.
Post by: AV82EC on May 21, 2024, 03:40:42 PM
As an aside I just read somewhere that our position in the league means we have earned £164.4m from PL and TV money this year. It is only £4m behind Liverpool. Taking last season's earnings, that is a rise of around £15m.
There’s an extra £15m on the turnover. Add in a plus 30% rise in spectators and UECL prize and broadcast money and my feeling that we have hit a quarter of a billion this season is looking good. £300m next year I reckon.
Strong agree and that projection for next year is pretty solid as well. If, and it is an if, we can do back to back UCL qualifications that will affect that turnover exponentially imv. If we’ve roughly achieved the first 5 year targets set by NSWE then it seems to me the next 5 years commercially should be about closing that turnover gap as much as possible to the rest of the bigger 6, hopefully the football side of things can deliver some silverware as well.
Post by: Kevin Dawson on May 21, 2024, 03:41:21 PM
Post by: OCD on May 21, 2024, 07:44:47 PM
As an aside I just read somewhere that our position in the league means we have earned £164.4m from PL and TV money this year. It is only £4m behind Liverpool. Taking last season's earnings, that is a rise of around £15m.
There’s an extra £15m on the turnover. Add in a plus 30% rise in spectators and UECL prize and broadcast money and my feeling that we have hit a quarter of a billion this season is looking good. £300m next year I reckon.
£300m this year so I read.
Post by: nick harper on May 21, 2024, 09:11:56 PM
This has probably been mentioned, but isn't the effect of the financial doping similar to Red Bull in F1. They broke the rules and got a slap, but that rule-breaking led to their current dominance for which they've received no punishment.
This is why Man City’s charges are unique. It’s simply fraud. Pumping illegal funds into the club for years under the cover of sponsorship, or receipts and payments outside their formal accounts and the obfuscating at every turn. It is this which has illegally put them at the top of annual revenues, above even Man U and Liverpool, genuine global clubs. Chelsea have done the same under Abramovich.
It’s completely different to Everton and Forest, who both co-operated, and were caught out by relatively small margins in comparison.
I don’t think they will get the size of punishment the corruption justifies but there is a massive opportunity to right a wrong that continues to distort English football.
Post by: Smithy on May 21, 2024, 09:19:08 PM
You've been cheating for ten years? Okay, then you get the penalty over ten years.
It'll never happen, obviously, but it's nice to imagine it might.
Post by: London Villan on May 21, 2024, 09:25:38 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 21, 2024, 09:27:27 PM
I like the idea that each year's breaches attract a points deduction for a single year. The following year's breaches attract a points deduction during the following season, and so on. You don't get to write it all off in one year of punishment.
You've been cheating for ten years? Okay, then you get the penalty over ten years.
It'll never happen, obviously, but it's nice to imagine it might.
I like that idea...
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 21, 2024, 09:32:40 PM
I like the idea that each year's breaches attract a points deduction for a single year. The following year's breaches attract a points deduction during the following season, and so on. You don't get to write it all off in one year of punishment.
You've been cheating for ten years? Okay, then you get the penalty over ten years.
It'll never happen, obviously, but it's nice to imagine it might.
The years of not disclosing evidence should also be added. This could’ve been sorted out ages ago if the gazillion lawyers were trying to be helpful rather than covering up what’s happened.
Post by: ChicagoLion on May 21, 2024, 09:39:36 PM
Lawyers can be like therapists, they have a vested interest in keeping continuing the treatment.I like the idea that each year's breaches attract a points deduction for a single year. The following year's breaches attract a points deduction during the following season, and so on. You don't get to write it all off in one year of punishment.
You've been cheating for ten years? Okay, then you get the penalty over ten years.
It'll never happen, obviously, but it's nice to imagine it might.
The years of not disclosing evidence should also be added. This could’ve been sorted out ages ago if the gazillion lawyers were trying to be helpful rather than covering up what’s happened.
Post by: Steve67 on May 21, 2024, 09:44:26 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 21, 2024, 10:28:21 PM
As an aside I just read somewhere that our position in the league means we have earned £164.4m from PL and TV money this year. It is only £4m behind Liverpool. Taking last season's earnings, that is a rise of around £15m.
There’s an extra £15m on the turnover. Add in a plus 30% rise in spectators and UECL prize and broadcast money and my feeling that we have hit a quarter of a billion this season is looking good. £300m next year I reckon.
£300m this year so I read.
Wow, that would be some jump from £218m(?). Where did you read that?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 22, 2024, 09:45:05 AM
As an aside I just read somewhere that our position in the league means we have earned £164.4m from PL and TV money this year. It is only £4m behind Liverpool. Taking last season's earnings, that is a rise of around £15m.
We got £156m last year. That article (from The Mirror and reported on in Birmingham Live) was based on a sort of guess, ie. what fourth place received last year. I think it will be higher as we were on TV more so we’ll get more facility payments, which are nearly a million pounds a match.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 22, 2024, 10:22:57 AM
Post by: OCD on May 23, 2024, 12:48:25 PM
Post by: purpletrousers on May 23, 2024, 01:08:10 PM
Good comments from Martin Samuel about us and our position. I only saw the article in the Birmingham Mail and I'm not sure what the policy is to posting links to that rag on here. They've only copied his comments from his own paper so I'll let someone else post a link if anyone's interested in what he says.
The Times
“Why doesn’t the Premier League want Aston Villa to thrive in Europe?
At the very point the Midlands club are in a position to flourish, they will have to sell players and act like paupers in a bargain basement store to meet PSR rules”
https://archive.md/m398v
Post by: OCD on May 23, 2024, 01:11:51 PM
Post by: Ads on May 23, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Post by: Duncan Shaw on May 23, 2024, 01:38:12 PM
Post by: LeeB on May 23, 2024, 01:45:42 PM
Plus, it emphasises even more the need for a top quality manager, staff and general set up, something we have in spades.
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 02:05:00 PM
I don't agree with Martin Samuel often, but yes, he is!! Imagine what we would be doing this window with no restrictions!
And while he is correct about the overall point, he still slips in nonsense like this;
Quote
Only once have Villa had a higher Premier League finish than this, in the competition’s first season, 1992-93.
And yet, we have won the league title seven times, so that cant be true...
League football wasn't created with the fucking Premier League.
And we should know because we fucking created it.
Fat headed cockney melt...
Post by: jwarry on May 23, 2024, 02:12:37 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 23, 2024, 02:16:17 PM
I don't agree with Martin Samuel often, but yes, he is!! Imagine what we would be doing this window with no restrictions!
And while he is correct about the overall point, he still slips in nonsense like this;QuoteOnly once have Villa had a higher Premier League finish than this, in the competition’s first season, 1992-93.
And yet, we have won the league title seven times, so that cant be true...
League football wasn't created with the fucking Premier League.
And we should know because we fucking created it.
Fat headed cockney melt...
I think he’s pretty clear on what he means.
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 02:19:01 PM
Football existed before the Premier League.
Post by: LeeB on May 23, 2024, 02:20:22 PM
I know what he means, it just pisses me off when they say it.
Football existed before the Premier League.
I just think it's a handy, era-defining timeframe in this case.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 23, 2024, 02:21:54 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 23, 2024, 02:26:09 PM
On the one hand yes, it's a bollocks, but giving the Jaudis free reign could be any even bigger problem and allowing could encourage similar parties to get involved.
Plus, it emphasises even more the need for a top quality manager, staff and general set up, something we have in spades.
That's my take on it too. Yes, it's irritating that the rules mean we can't buy the 3 or 4 top class players we need for a proper tilt at Champions League, but allowing unlimited spending would reduce the advantages we currently have in Emery and his staff.
Post by: paul_e on May 23, 2024, 02:31:17 PM
On the one hand yes, it's a bollocks, but giving the Jaudis free reign could be any even bigger problem and allowing could encourage similar parties to get involved.
Plus, it emphasises even more the need for a top quality manager, staff and general set up, something we have in spades.
That's my take on it too. Yes, it's irritating that the rules mean we can't buy the 3 or 4 top class players we need for a proper tilt at Champions League, but allowing unlimited spending would reduce the advantages we currently have in Emery and his staff.
I understand the argument but any policy that support turning academies into talent farms is shit.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 23, 2024, 02:38:05 PM
Post by: UK Redsox on May 23, 2024, 02:39:23 PM
I know what he means, it just pisses me off when they say it.
Football existed before the Premier League.
I just think it's a handy, era-defining timeframe in this case.
I wonder how long it will be before they come up with a different cut-off ?
Having said that, in Baseball the term 'The Modern Era' is used when discussing records.
It means everything since 1901 :)
Post by: ADVILLAFAN on May 23, 2024, 02:41:50 PM
I know what he means, it just pisses me off when they say it.
Football existed before the Premier League.
I just think it's a handy, era-defining timeframe in this case.
I wonder how long it will be before they come up with a different cut-off ?
Having said that, in Baseball the term 'The Modern Era' is used when discussing records.
It means everything since 1901 :)
And Villa are the reigning English Professional Baseball Champions too.
Post by: paul_e on May 23, 2024, 02:57:08 PM
Yep that’s a flaw of the system, but the idea of some level of control makes sense. It just needs refining.
I think caps are a better idea and better for the game in the long run but not tied solely to the revenue of individual clubs. The rewritten policy they're looking at starting for 25/26 is a big step in the right direction and just needs some tweaks to the specific figures to reduce the gap between the top and bottom of the league.
I'm also not completely against the idea of some sort of solidarity system where any spending above a certain threshold triggers payments to a fund that supports the welfare and competitiveness of the league, I'd like to see that for sponsorship and commercial revenue to an extent as well. If that could support things like improving academy standards and restricting ticket prices I think it would be great for the game in this country.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 23, 2024, 03:09:21 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 03:13:49 PM
On the one hand yes, it's a bollocks, but giving the Jaudis free reign could be any even bigger problem and allowing could encourage similar parties to get involved.
Plus, it emphasises even more the need for a top quality manager, staff and general set up, something we have in spades.
That's my take on it too. Yes, it's irritating that the rules mean we can't buy the 3 or 4 top class players we need for a proper tilt at Champions League, but allowing unlimited spending would reduce the advantages we currently have in Emery and his staff.
I understand the argument but any policy that support turning academies into talent farms is shit.
Agreed. 100%.
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 03:20:46 PM
It’s the Premier League’s first season though - I’m not sure anyone isn’t aware that football did exist before then. But it’s true we haven’t finished higher than second since 1992 when the Premier League started.
But we did before 1992... Seven times.
Do we restart the counting every time the top flight gets a new name from a change in sponsor?
The issue I have is that modern day reporting is taken as gospel by the modern day fan.
I have once had a ManU fan tell me that Villa had never won the European Cup because he had never heard about it. And yes, he is a glory hunting imbecile whose arrogance is only beaten by his ignorance, but welcome to the modern day fan...
It just bothers me when prominent media figures like Samuel talk about football like there was nothing before the Premier League.
You & I know what he is talking about & the context in which he says it.
But a lot of the modern day fans don't...
Post by: Ads on May 23, 2024, 03:22:00 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 03:25:37 PM
Because what we did in the 19th century is nice and historic, but absolutely irrelevant to anything that is happening in the game right now. 1992/93 is a different era, never mind the 1890s.
So what is the cut off point that titles & trophies become irrelevant?
We count from the beginning. Because that is what has happened.
That is the history of the game.
Otherwise, people will choose selective cut off points to suit whatever agenda they are pushing.
Post by: Ads on May 23, 2024, 03:29:03 PM
Everybody knows we have pots and pans from when God was a lad. It's what makes us grand, but it's not what makes us relevant.
Post by: Risso on May 23, 2024, 03:36:49 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 03:43:43 PM
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.
I understand that, but unfortunately, the choice of wording he used to emphasise the point, did write off our history before 1992.
'Highest finish in 30 years" would not only have been factually accurate, but shows respect to football before 1992.
There are ways to say what Ads mentioned above, about how we have achieved something great in the modern era, without completely ignoring about 100 years of factual history.
It's something that irritates me a lot.
It doesn't bother everybody & thats fine. That is their view & they are entitled to that.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Im too tired to take this any further... 😂👍
Post by: Ads on May 23, 2024, 03:46:50 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 23, 2024, 03:58:48 PM
I dont know, it strikes me as a bit precious and lacking in self confidence if you had to routinely bring up how much we've won. We're not Huddersfield. It's not a surprise that we've won the lot many times over, people know it, assume it, that's why we're an assumed grand institution even if you were in the dark about our history.
Im not sure how you got to that from what I said.
I never mentioned bringing up our trophies other than to talk about the ignorance of the modern day fan from a direct conversation I had with one specifically about trophies.
Other than that, I just want the context to be clearer & decades of football not to be ignored.
Risso hit the nail on the head with his "highest finish in 30 years" alternative.
Perfect.
Thats all I want from modern day journalists...
And now I really am finished... Im off for a snooze... 😉
Apologies for taking the thread off on a personal irritation tangent... 😁
Post by: pauliewalnuts on May 23, 2024, 04:05:11 PM
Like 'post war' refers to since WW2, when it could actually refer to any one of hundreds of wars. That's why people use decades, or things like the reigns of monarchs.
Anyway, we need to stop banging on about how much we've won and start winning something again, because that person of 40 years old referred to above has seen us win next to nothing.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 23, 2024, 04:15:22 PM
Post by: The Edge on May 23, 2024, 04:48:11 PM
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on May 23, 2024, 05:05:52 PM
Post by: nigel on May 23, 2024, 09:11:22 PM
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.
Flippin heck, mate, my eyes are watering at the thought 😂
Post by: garyellis on May 23, 2024, 09:31:24 PM
We can out compete financially given our owner’s resources the majority but not necessarily the sovereign owned clubs.
I think Purslow mentioned his concerns about this before he moved on.
Post by: OCD on May 23, 2024, 09:44:14 PM
I think Purslow mentioned his concerns about this before he moved on.
After he moved on. He never foresaw youth development becoming all about selling for 'pure FFP profit'.
With that Samuel article, it's amazing how the context of what he was saying has been overlooked because of what was likely a passing comment rather than an attempt to re-write history. He was saying that after qualifying for the Champions League for the first time (in the existing format), that we're in a better position to attract a higher calibre of player that would have previously been unavailable to us. And instead of doing that, we're seeing who we can get for little or no fee, and possibly having to sell someone we don't want to. It is a massively fucked up way of doing things for a league that prides itself on being the best in the world.
Post by: RichardBatchelor on May 24, 2024, 07:04:45 AM
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.
Is the foreskin City or United though? Need to specify.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 24, 2024, 10:19:27 AM
When you're contextualising an achievement like breaking the top 4, I'd say it makes far more sense to do it in a Premier League era, as the game has changed at such a pace. We're all accountants now.
You wish!
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on May 25, 2024, 12:56:11 AM
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.
Is the foreskin City or United though? Need to specify.
If you can find my foreskin, I'll staple it to the floor. May be in a pickle jar somewhere.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 25, 2024, 01:16:45 AM
If you can find my foreskin, I'll staple it to the floor. May be in a pickle jar somewhere.
Sorry for your loss. :(
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on May 25, 2024, 01:23:38 AM
If you can find my foreskin, I'll staple it to the floor. May be in a pickle jar somewhere.
Sorry for your loss. :(
Thanks BV 🥲
Post by: Ads on May 28, 2024, 01:06:59 PM
When the time eventually comes for them to face the music here, it will be on balance of probabilities. Any casual reading of some of the documentary evidence would indicate to me years worth of hiding equity as sponsorship and should they be my client and wish to rely on witness evidence they did at CAS, my eyebrows might just rise so high they'd fall off my head. It would be useful to reacquaint myself with changes to CPR 81 if I was sat the other side of the argument too, in the event the witness evidence was relied upon.
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 28, 2024, 01:19:36 PM
I didnt realise that the burden of proof for Man City at CAS was "comfortable satisfaction". No wonder they got away with it with such nebulous garbage more akin to a Trip Advisor review than a legal burden.
When the time eventually comes for them to face the music here, it will be on balance of probabilities. Any casual reading of some of the documentary evidence would indicate to me years worth of hiding equity as sponsorship and should they be my client and wish to rely on witness evidence they did at CAS, my eyebrows might just rise so high they'd fall off my head. It would be useful to reacquaint myself with changes to CPR 81 if I was sat the other side of the argument too, in the event the witness evidence was relied upon.
And didnt they out their own lawyer on the panel, or something?
Post by: Ads on May 28, 2024, 07:01:26 PM
Post by: dalians umbrella on May 28, 2024, 07:15:18 PM
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.
Pass the source please
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 28, 2024, 07:17:25 PM
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.
That is some good news. More sensible than it was anyways.
Hopefully that puts a stop to all the articles about us having to sell to stay alive...
Post by: VillaTim on May 28, 2024, 07:19:34 PM
Red or Brown .New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.
Pass the source please
Post by: dalians umbrella on May 28, 2024, 07:24:03 PM
Red or Brown .New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.
Pass the source please
HPSR
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 28, 2024, 07:27:25 PM
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.
£20-30m on the last year or on each year?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 28, 2024, 07:34:35 PM
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.
£20-30m on the last year or on each year?
I'd imagine it's an increase from £105m to £125-135m of losses over a 3 year period.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 28, 2024, 07:39:52 PM
Post by: villadelph on May 28, 2024, 08:00:50 PM
Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?
I assume this is what’s being talked about..? Makes sense to me.
Quote
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1904649/Premier-League-news-rule-change-Crystal-Palace-Aston-Villa
UEFA’s coefficient payments currently uses a club’s last ten years of performances in European competitions when determining how finances are split. Thus, Manchester City are said to have received a significant £28million compared to Newcastle’s £3.8m this season.
However, according to The Times, Crystal Palace have proposed that changed are made to the coefficient payments which could improve how English sides fare in top European competitions.
The changes would see the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) to allow teams to claim the difference in coefficient funding between themselves and the top club in Europe as ‘allowable losses’.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 28, 2024, 08:01:29 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 28, 2024, 08:10:47 PM
Post by: dalians umbrella on May 28, 2024, 08:13:27 PM
https://archive.ph/OWEUc
"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 28, 2024, 08:23:19 PM
From the horse's mouth:
https://archive.ph/OWEUc
"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."
Nice one.
Post by: Demitri_C on May 28, 2024, 08:23:53 PM
Post by: ozzjim on May 28, 2024, 08:28:12 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on May 28, 2024, 08:51:19 PM
And didnt they out their own lawyer on the panel, or something?
UEFA put a representative, Citeh also put a representative, then the third one in independent. However IIRC the third person was someone who happened to work at the same law firm Citeh had paid to represent them on the case.
Post by: jon collett on May 28, 2024, 09:09:11 PM
Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?
It’s being reported as something Crystal Palace are proposing but the only place I’ve seen it suggested as being likely to pass is on here.
It would need the support of 12 clubs wouldn’t it?
Post by: dalians umbrella on May 28, 2024, 09:16:00 PM
Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?
It’s being reported as something Crystal Palace are proposing but the only place I’ve seen it suggested as being likely to pass is on here.
It would need the support of 12 clubs wouldn’t it?
Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 28, 2024, 09:19:32 PM
Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.
Given their end of season form, maybe they think they could be next season's surprise Champs League qualifiers. ;)
And of course, Villa have been very helpful to Palace in the past.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 28, 2024, 10:07:07 PM
From the horse's mouth:
https://archive.ph/OWEUc
"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."
That makes a big difference to Villa (and other ambitious clubs). It seems very logical, or am I looking through C&B glasses? Would I feel the same if spurs got the benefit of the extra allowable losses?
The fact it impact so few clubs, yet strengthens the PL, means there’s a good chance it will get voted in right?
Post by: garyellis on May 28, 2024, 10:07:32 PM
Maybe clubs should vote on the principle rather than preventing another progressing.Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.
Given their end of season form, maybe they think they could be next season's surprise Champs League qualifiers. ;)
And of course, Villa have been very helpful to Palace in the past.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 28, 2024, 10:15:13 PM
Yes, I don’t see why any other clubs would want to help us out in this way and strengthen our chances of getting top 4 again next season. But then again, I don’t see what’s in it for Palace, so maybe I’m missing something.
Given their end of season form, maybe they think they could be next season's surprise Champs League qualifiers. ;)
And of course, Villa have been very helpful to Palace in the past.
Maybe clubs should vote on the principle rather than preventing another progressing.
Too true, Parish is right that Uefa’s coefficient payments seem unfair.
Post by: LeeB on May 29, 2024, 10:41:29 AM
From the horse's mouth:
https://archive.ph/OWEUc
"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."
That's my kinda rule change.
Post by: Monty on May 29, 2024, 10:43:36 AM
From the horse's mouth:
https://archive.ph/OWEUc
"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."
That's my kinda rule change.
Palace. A great bunch of lads.
Post by: dalians umbrella on May 29, 2024, 10:50:11 AM
From the horse's mouth:
https://archive.ph/OWEUc
"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."
That's my kinda rule change.
Palace. A great bunch of lads.
Again, this is why this forum needs a reaction button.
Post by: paul_e on May 29, 2024, 11:09:55 AM
Post by: OCD on May 29, 2024, 12:05:52 PM
Immediately after that meeting, there were reports that we were going to propose changing the allowable loss over 3 years from £105m to £135m. Given how there seems to be a consensus across the league to be able to spend more and how many of the clubs are either in trouble with FFP or walking a tightrope, this should pass.
Palace's proposal seems to be about fairness and may gather some support but you would think that if it's a choice between the 2 proposals, there would be more broad support for increasing the allowable loss to £135m for the last year of PSR.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 02:12:45 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 29, 2024, 02:16:02 PM
The important fundamentals are not the parroted ‘Villa are fucked’ narratives, nor the oft-repeated ‘JJ is pure profit’ misunderstanding - so are SJM, Luiz, Tielemans, Kamara, Konsa, Watkins, Big Emi, Bailey - but the analysis from Swiss Ramble that we’re comfortably under the limit and the fact that revenue will nearly double next season from that recorded in the last but one set of accounts.
Absolutely, almost all of the "they're fucked" analysis comes with very little actual evidence beyond the fact that we announced a big loss.
Post by: Ads on May 29, 2024, 02:17:31 PM
The accounts for 24/25 with Champions League, Adidas and Betano will likely show £300m+ turnover. Crazy stuff.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 02:22:44 PM
What have Swiss Ramble said?
The accounts for 24/25 with Champions League, Adidas and Betano will likely show £300m+ turnover. Crazy stuff.
They broke down the three-year cycle including the allowable losses (Covid etc) and put it at £95m loss over that time.
And yes, that’s what I meant by nearly double. The last but one accounts had it at about £178m I think. Last ones reported £214m. The ones for the season just gone will probably hit a quarter of a billion, then, as you say £300m +
Post by: Ads on May 29, 2024, 02:25:07 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 29, 2024, 02:28:30 PM
What have Swiss Ramble said?
The accounts for 24/25 with Champions League, Adidas and Betano will likely show £300m+ turnover. Crazy stuff.
They broke down the three-year cycle including the allowable losses (Covid etc) and put it at £95m loss over that time.
And yes, that’s what I meant by nearly double. The last but one accounts had it at about £178m I think. Last ones reported £214m. The ones for the season just gone will probably hit a quarter of a billion, then, as you say £300m +
That is good news...
And pretty much what the club have said all along.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 29, 2024, 02:30:42 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 02:36:36 PM
2023 - £120m loss (£93m loss)
2022 - £400k profit (£22m profit)
2021 - £37m loss (£24m loss).
So, when 2024 accounts are reported, they will join a £71m loss in the three-year cycle, meaning a £34m loss after deductible items will be allowed.
Post by: AV82EC on May 29, 2024, 02:54:44 PM
A bit more on the current three year cycle, with the headline accounts reported figures and figures with the allowable deductibles included in brackets.
2023 - £120m loss (£93m loss)
2022 - £400k profit (£22m profit)
2021 - £37m loss (£24m loss).
So, when 2024 accounts are reported, they will join a £71m loss in the three-year cycle, meaning a £34m loss after deductible items will be allowed.
Unless of course the allowable limit is voted through to £135m which would mean a £64m loss is allowable.
Thanks for posting all these figures up Percy it’s valuable data for the stats nerds among us.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 29, 2024, 02:56:02 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on May 29, 2024, 02:56:24 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 02:58:06 PM
Any ideas if/how we're going to comply with UEFA's 70% wages to turnover FFP rule?
Well, we complied in the season just gone, and we’re massively increasing turnover.
Post by: AV82EC on May 29, 2024, 02:59:25 PM
Meaning we are sailing close then?
No because you can’t read these figures in isolation they need to be read in conjunction with the increases in turnover figures.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on May 29, 2024, 02:59:29 PM
Post by: Monty on May 29, 2024, 03:01:13 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 03:06:30 PM
I'm sure we're more conscious of it than before, and I'm sure it's inhibiting our spending this summer, but if Percy and Swiss Ramble are even slightly right it's a much rosier picture than the media had led us to believe was the case.
It’s a bit like the football pundits not knowing about our injury crisis - they don’t really put much effort into analysing us.
Apparently, Maguire once had a theory that we wouldn’t be allowed to be promoted because of FFP. Although he somewhat weakly denied this when I asked him about it on X.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 29, 2024, 03:35:44 PM
A bit more on the current three year cycle, with the headline accounts reported figures and figures with the allowable deductibles included in brackets.
2023 - £120m loss (£93m loss)
2022 - £400k profit (£22m profit)
2021 - £37m loss (£24m loss).
So, when 2024 accounts are reported, they will join a £71m loss in the three-year cycle, meaning a £34m loss after deductible items will be allowed.
Thanks. Where are those allowable deductibles from?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 03:45:26 PM
A bit more on the current three year cycle, with the headline accounts reported figures and figures with the allowable deductibles included in brackets.
2023 - £120m loss (£93m loss)
2022 - £400k profit (£22m profit)
2021 - £37m loss (£24m loss).
So, when 2024 accounts are reported, they will join a £71m loss in the three-year cycle, meaning a £34m loss after deductible items will be allowed.
Thanks. Where are those allowable deductibles from?
The Swiss Ramble.
Or did you mean what they come from? In which case, it’s Covid, Academy, women’s football and infrastructure spending.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 29, 2024, 03:47:19 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 03:49:11 PM
Ah thanks.
No worries.
Post by: OCD on May 29, 2024, 04:23:06 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2024, 04:29:19 PM
The Women's team is a separate company.
Indeed. Strange one that. I wonder what the thinking is there?
Post by: Dogtanian on May 29, 2024, 04:59:45 PM
The Women's team is a separate company.
Indeed. Strange one that. I wonder what the thinking is there?
It is, but it comes under the group accounts, does it not? Because we reported we'd spent £4.4m on the women's team in our last group accounts, which is what has been taken off for FFP.
Post by: Scott Nielsen on May 30, 2024, 07:21:13 AM
What have Swiss Ramble said?
They broke down the three-year cycle including the allowable losses (Covid etc) and put it at £95m loss over that time.
Do you have the link, Percy? I could only find a very brief write-up at a cursory search.
Post by: Mister E on May 30, 2024, 07:32:48 AM
Maguire seems a little salty toward us. Is this just a B&HA thing or is something else at play?I'm sure we're more conscious of it than before, and I'm sure it's inhibiting our spending this summer, but if Percy and Swiss Ramble are even slightly right it's a much rosier picture than the media had led us to believe was the case.It’s a bit like the football pundits not knowing about our injury crisis - they don’t really put much effort into analysing us.
Apparently, Maguire once had a theory that we wouldn’t be allowed to be promoted because of FFP. Although he somewhat weakly denied this when I asked him about it on X.
Post by: PeterWithe on May 30, 2024, 09:07:24 AM
The Women's team is a separate company.
But so is the stadium, and infrastructure spending on it can be deducted from the losses just the same, I suppose one of our accountants will answer in due course but I suspect the womens team will be part of the group, who make up the total losses.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 30, 2024, 09:33:20 AM
What have Swiss Ramble said?
They broke down the three-year cycle including the allowable losses (Covid etc) and put it at £95m loss over that time.
Do you have the link, Percy? I could only find a very brief write-up at a cursory search.
Sorry Scott, I got it from a write-up on one of the Villa sites on Facebook. They didn’t post a link either. Here’s the text, with a bit of what I consider superfluous opinion:
“I wouldn't recommend proceeding if you don't like posts on our finances...
So a lot was made of the fact that we incurred losses of £120m in the last set of accounts...with the maximum loss allowed over a three year period being £105m...
Now the club stated that they continued to operate within PSR...and were not charged...
Swiss Ramble who study and analyse the accounts of PL clubs concurred and stated that after allowable losses which are infrastructure, youth development, community and women's football the loss for the year was £93m...
Still a lot...however we made a £22m profit in 2022, and a £24m loss in 2021... therefore it averages out to £95m so we were within £10m of the limit...
For the next submitted accounts we need to restrict our FFP losses to £34m to remain compliant...and the general message from the club has been that they believe they will be...
Things that will help for those next set of accounts will be those academy sales last window...Archer, Philogene, AJ, Azaz and Davis which is £41.5m of profit...
Finishing 4th will have helped in terms of prize money...commercial and match day revenue will have increased....
The fact that we spent money in January would suggest we don't have to sell to be within PSR limits...
We made £218m last season and should make significantly more for the next accounts...
Our summer transfer window though relates to the accounts that follow and since it's done on a 3 year basis we need a good accounting year...that Jack sale is basically why we're compliant at present...
So on the basis that we're allowed £105m in losses over 3 years...that £93m loss will count, and lets say we restrict ourselves to a £34m loss for the next accounts then to be compliant we'll need to register a £22m profit to be compliant for the accounts that follow...
So Champions League revenue, improved commercial deals, matchday income etc is all extremely helpful for this coming transfer window...but sales would be helpful also...
The silly thing about this whole PSR thing is a big sale can carry you for a while like Jack's sale still is...so if we get a £50m bid for JJ for example it would simply be good business to do the deal as it could be beneficial for a few windows..”
Post by: pablo_picasso on May 30, 2024, 11:13:04 AM
Maguire seems a little salty toward us. Is this just a B&HA thing or is something else at play?I'm sure we're more conscious of it than before, and I'm sure it's inhibiting our spending this summer, but if Percy and Swiss Ramble are even slightly right it's a much rosier picture than the media had led us to believe was the case.It’s a bit like the football pundits not knowing about our injury crisis - they don’t really put much effort into analysing us.
Apparently, Maguire once had a theory that we wouldn’t be allowed to be promoted because of FFP. Although he somewhat weakly denied this when I asked him about it on X.
I just think he doesn't like being proven to be incorrect & doesn't have the courage to admit that he is wrong...
Post by: dicedlam on May 30, 2024, 12:03:15 PM
https://careers.avfc.co.uk/job/management-accountant?source=google.com
Any creative accountants out there looking for a job? -;
Post by: Exeter 77 on May 30, 2024, 12:23:48 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on May 30, 2024, 12:28:24 PM
Maguire seems a little salty toward us. Is this just a B&HA thing or is something else at play?I'm sure we're more conscious of it than before, and I'm sure it's inhibiting our spending this summer, but if Percy and Swiss Ramble are even slightly right it's a much rosier picture than the media had led us to believe was the case.It’s a bit like the football pundits not knowing about our injury crisis - they don’t really put much effort into analysing us.
Apparently, Maguire once had a theory that we wouldn’t be allowed to be promoted because of FFP. Although he somewhat weakly denied this when I asked him about it on X.
I just think he doesn't like being proven to be incorrect & doesn't have the courage to admit that he is wrong...
He'd fill Southgate's shoes nicely -
- Former England international
- Never won the league
- Failed top-flight club manager
- Is never wrong
- Too big and brave to ever admit it if he was
Post by: eye digress on May 30, 2024, 03:54:30 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 30, 2024, 04:05:02 PM
Believe that this must be the article (https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202223) (but paywalled).
The big question fromthat article is exactly how much of the increase in wages and other expenses (which is just shy of £82m combined) is down to the sacking and replacing of an entire coaching team. We know there will have been a lot of release fees involved on both sides but it'll be really interesting to see how much those figures go down in the 23/24 accounts. My bet is that it drops by something around £40-50m, even with the new signings.
Post by: ChicagoLion on May 30, 2024, 04:19:09 PM
but it is hard to see how we can upgrade the squad without selling a prime asset. I think most would agree that we need a Right Back and cover for Kamara as an absolute minimum and i don't think that happens without spending some money, of course we might get lucky/smart as we have with Tielemans and Kamara.
Post by: LeeS on May 30, 2024, 05:28:59 PM
Post by: Hopadop on May 30, 2024, 09:39:21 PM
Some red hot legal chat.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 31, 2024, 04:37:50 AM
Post by: algy on May 31, 2024, 06:59:05 AM
Yup and that’d include me. I’m very aware we won plenty in and around 1900 and then again in the early 80s. But I’ve seen us win 2 League Cups. We need to start winning stuff now, it’s nearly bloody 30 years which is pretty dismal.Yes, this. We were pretty decent when I started going to watch Villa ... finished 2nd in 89/90, 92/93, won the league cup in 93/94 and 95/96. So not prolific but a lot more than most clubs. The next 28 years though? It's not been great really. We've stopped winning things, stopped being a proper force, in honesty stopped being relevant for the most part.
Forcing ourselves back in to relevant this season has been brilliant. The best bit has been that nobody has been shocked as we've pretty much been top 4 all season.
You'll see a load of pundits predict a return to the usual subjects next season, but I bet we'll stay there now and next season, it the season after, we'll begin to become the subjects of last predictions
, eg that the top 4 will be Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Villa in the same order as where those cigs finished the previous season, or with two clubs swapped over.
Post by: Dogtanian on May 31, 2024, 11:31:34 AM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
He's skimmed our thread now!
Post by: Risso on May 31, 2024, 11:42:57 AM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
I wouldn't bother mate. Doesn't he write for Football Insider now as well? Anybody that even slightly elevates that bunch of twats' standing in the game should be roundly ignored. I take all my FFP comfort from you now fella.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 31, 2024, 11:50:55 AM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
On the basis of the proposed changes?
Post by: Scott Nielsen on May 31, 2024, 01:26:58 PM
Sorry Scott, I got it from a write-up on one of the Villa sites on Facebook. They didn’t post a link either. Here’s the text, with a bit of what I consider superfluous opinion:
<snip>
Appreciated!
Post by: tomd2103 on May 31, 2024, 01:41:41 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Post by: paul_e on May 31, 2024, 02:27:06 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Not really. The accounts for the season that's just finished will have had £24m loss drop off and the big losses in 22/23 included a significant chunk of 'exceptional' losses around replacing all the management and coaches.
That gives us a lot more wiggle room than people will have expected. Add on £30m+ in additional prize money and Europe and consider that our transfers last season will have a cost on those accounts of about £27-28m but that we got in something closer to £35m and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we report something close to break even.
That means that even if we do have a drop off of £24m (and remember it might not matter because of the talk of changing the system anyway) it will easily be wiped out by the increased sponsorship and CL money we already have in place.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 31, 2024, 03:57:41 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
On the basis of the proposed changes?
Dunno, just saw a quote from him on Twitter saying CL income should set us up nicely for the next few years.
I mean, we’ll definitely be ‘alright’. We have so many saleable assets whose fees have been amortised. We could sell one a year and it would give us room to buy three or four new players.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 31, 2024, 03:59:23 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
I wouldn't bother mate. Doesn't he write for Football Insider now as well? Anybody that even slightly elevates that bunch of twats' standing in the game should be roundly ignored. I take all my FFP comfort from you now fella.
Blimey mate, praise indeed. I was waiting for you to tell me if I’m talking bollocks or not.
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 31, 2024, 04:22:45 PM
Post by: Villatillidie25 on May 31, 2024, 08:26:20 PM
Isn't £45000 a bit low for a management accountant?
Doubt it. Management Accountant is unlikely to be particularly senior. Basically means a qualified professional with <5 years PQE I’d imagine
Post by: Brazilian Villain on May 31, 2024, 08:31:58 PM
Isn't £45000 a bit low for a management accountant?
Doubt it. Management Accountant is unlikely to be particularly senior. Basically means a qualified professional with <5 years PQE I’d imagine
Not even, the ad says qualified accountant or a finalist. Hopefully, Tim Sherwood doesn't apply.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 31, 2024, 08:51:22 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on May 31, 2024, 09:57:18 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Not really. The accounts for the season that's just finished will have had £24m loss drop off and the big losses in 22/23 included a significant chunk of 'exceptional' losses around replacing all the management and coaches.
That gives us a lot more wiggle room than people will have expected. Add on £30m+ in additional prize money and Europe and consider that our transfers last season will have a cost on those accounts of about £27-28m but that we got in something closer to £35m and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we report something close to break even.
That means that even if we do have a drop off of £24m (and remember it might not matter because of the talk of changing the system anyway) it will easily be wiped out by the increased sponsorship and CL money we already have in place.
As I understand it Paul, according to the figures posted a few pages back we are currently at a £71m loss at the two year point, with this year's making up the 3rd year. Is that right?
Post by: paul_e on May 31, 2024, 10:04:53 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Not really. The accounts for the season that's just finished will have had £24m loss drop off and the big losses in 22/23 included a significant chunk of 'exceptional' losses around replacing all the management and coaches.
That gives us a lot more wiggle room than people will have expected. Add on £30m+ in additional prize money and Europe and consider that our transfers last season will have a cost on those accounts of about £27-28m but that we got in something closer to £35m and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we report something close to break even.
That means that even if we do have a drop off of £24m (and remember it might not matter because of the talk of changing the system anyway) it will easily be wiped out by the increased sponsorship and CL money we already have in place.
As I understand it Paul, according to the figures posted a few pages back we are currently at a £71m loss at the two year point, with this year's making up the 3rd year. Is that right?
Yep
Post by: tomd2103 on June 01, 2024, 01:34:50 AM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Not really. The accounts for the season that's just finished will have had £24m loss drop off and the big losses in 22/23 included a significant chunk of 'exceptional' losses around replacing all the management and coaches.
That gives us a lot more wiggle room than people will have expected. Add on £30m+ in additional prize money and Europe and consider that our transfers last season will have a cost on those accounts of about £27-28m but that we got in something closer to £35m and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we report something close to break even.
That means that even if we do have a drop off of £24m (and remember it might not matter because of the talk of changing the system anyway) it will easily be wiped out by the increased sponsorship and CL money we already have in place.
As I understand it Paul, according to the figures posted a few pages back we are currently at a £71m loss at the two year point, with this year's making up the 3rd year. Is that right?
Yep
So this year might not be too bad, but unless things change then am I wrong in thinking next year could be an issue?
Would I be right in thinking that, under the same rules, year one would be the £93m loss and then whatever the figure is for this year will be added on top of that? So even a fairly minimal loss this year in comparison would take us close to that £105m limit in just two of the three years?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 01, 2024, 11:02:58 AM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Not really. The accounts for the season that's just finished will have had £24m loss drop off and the big losses in 22/23 included a significant chunk of 'exceptional' losses around replacing all the management and coaches.
That gives us a lot more wiggle room than people will have expected. Add on £30m+ in additional prize money and Europe and consider that our transfers last season will have a cost on those accounts of about £27-28m but that we got in something closer to £35m and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we report something close to break even.
That means that even if we do have a drop off of £24m (and remember it might not matter because of the talk of changing the system anyway) it will easily be wiped out by the increased sponsorship and CL money we already have in place.
As I understand it Paul, according to the figures posted a few pages back we are currently at a £71m loss at the two year point, with this year's making up the 3rd year. Is that right?
Yep
So this year might not be too bad, but unless things change then am I wrong in thinking next year could be an issue?
Would I be right in thinking that, under the same rules, year one would be the £93m loss and then whatever the figure is for this year will be added on top of that? So even a fairly minimal loss this year in comparison would take us close to that £105m limit in just two of the three years?
You’re taking out the £22m profit a year early. And the year after it drops out the rules change to the new squad cost control rules, when we’re allowed to spend a percentage of our vastly increased turnover.
Post by: olaftab on June 01, 2024, 11:28:04 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on June 01, 2024, 02:31:06 PM
Maguire thinks we’ll be alright now. Changes his mind every five minutes though. I might start listening to his podcast now he sounds like he’s found a clue.
If the rules stay as they are, won't next season be the tight one as the £22m profit will have fallen off the 3 year cycle? The £93m loss (after deductibles) looks a problem under the current rules and that will still be on next season along with whatever the past year has brought.
We would be looking at having to make a fairly decent profit next season to stay on the right side of it wouldn't we (if of course it hasn't changed by then)?
Not really. The accounts for the season that's just finished will have had £24m loss drop off and the big losses in 22/23 included a significant chunk of 'exceptional' losses around replacing all the management and coaches.
That gives us a lot more wiggle room than people will have expected. Add on £30m+ in additional prize money and Europe and consider that our transfers last season will have a cost on those accounts of about £27-28m but that we got in something closer to £35m and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we report something close to break even.
That means that even if we do have a drop off of £24m (and remember it might not matter because of the talk of changing the system anyway) it will easily be wiped out by the increased sponsorship and CL money we already have in place.
As I understand it Paul, according to the figures posted a few pages back we are currently at a £71m loss at the two year point, with this year's making up the 3rd year. Is that right?
Yep
So this year might not be too bad, but unless things change then am I wrong in thinking next year could be an issue?
Would I be right in thinking that, under the same rules, year one would be the £93m loss and then whatever the figure is for this year will be added on top of that? So even a fairly minimal loss this year in comparison would take us close to that £105m limit in just two of the three years?
You’re taking out the £22m profit a year early. And the year after it drops out the rules change to the new squad cost control rules, when we’re allowed to spend a percentage of our vastly increased turnover.
Ah right, cheers.
Post by: Clive W on June 02, 2024, 03:38:16 PM
Could Liverpool sign Ollie Watkins? A piece of tantalising summer transfer news in one respect, although also representative of the debate that will go right to the heart of the Premier League annual general meeting this week.
Profit and sustainability rules [PSR] have dominated season 2023-2024 – and as the summer window opens, it is still live. Aston Villa, the Premier League’s new representative in the Champions League, are at the centre of the question and by extension leading players at the club like Watkins – Villa’s 27-goal striker last season. In any other circumstances, selling Watkins would be unthinkable ahead of this, Villa’s first European Cup season since 1983. What makes it plausible is the PSR factor.
The losses Villa posted in March for last season, £119.6 million, place them in PSR breach danger. Not all that loss figure will represent a PSR loss. Nevertheless it is not hard to see why the club have proposed on the AGM agenda raising the permitted losses under PSR from £105 million to £135 million for this final three year monitoring period under the current rules. Without player sales this summer perhaps Villa could breach and the first whispers of Liverpool’s interest in Watkins – real or otherwise – surfaced this week.
Whether that is accurate or not is one question – the very fact that selling Watkins is a scenario Villa might have to entertain is another which the Premier League will be forced to deal with.
This is the great problem Premier League PSR faces: not all the models of distributing the great wealth of football are under the Premier League’s control. The biggest clubs are paid by Uefa for their participation in the Champions League and that system is weighted in favour of the clubs who qualify every year. Until Uefa gets rid of that bias – historic performance, known as the Uefa coefficient – then the biggest, wealthiest clubs will always have an advantage.
Clubs are, in short, given a greater share of the Uefa rights income based on historic performance. It has skewed Newcastle United’s earnings this season in the Champions League because their coefficient, after ten years outside any kind of Uefa competition, was non-existent. Even though the formula for calculating broadcast income is changing next season, it is likely to have a similar effect on the earnings of Villa, another newcomer to the Champions League.
The football finance analyst Kieron O’Connor has estimated that on the current formula for calculating revenue, Manchester United will earn £60 million in Uefa distributions for the Champions League this season, almost twice that of Newcastle, around £34 million. That is despite both clubs going out at the group stage in which Newcastle earned one point more from six games than the team from Manchester. Of the €2 billion Uefa will distribute this season to Champions League clubs, €600 million will be divided according to a team’s coefficient – performance over the last ten years.
From next season, the weighting of Uefa Champions League payments via coefficient is woven into a more complex formula. It will in part be combined with the revenue Uefa earns from the broadcast territory of each club in question. Nevertheless historic performance of clubs – over five years and ten years according to the pertinent part of the calculation – will still play a part.
It is an old hangover from a time when Uefa lost a grip of the biggest clubs, after the scandal that felled its former president Michel Platini in 2016. The coefficient is an anti-competitive pill for the competition. One that ensures new entrants to the Champions League like Villa or Newcastle cannot make major strides in revenue in their first season, and may struggle to have an impact or indeed qualify again the following season.
As Newcastle fell away last season from fourth in 2022-23 to seventh this season, so may Villa. Changing the PSR top limit of permitted losses from £105 million to £135 million just imports the inequalities of Uefa to the Premier League and potentially damages the league’s competitive balance. Crystal Palace have proposed a leveling mechanism to Uefa’s established club bias. One in which owners like those at Villa would be able to make additional equity investments based on the average income the Premier League’s Champions League clubs earn from their Uefa coefficient payments.
It is a difficult problem to solve. For the 2024-2027 three season Champions League cycle, Uefa will distribute a total of €2.5 billion, 25 per cent up from the last cycle, to 36 clubs in the new format. Of that a third, €853 million, what Uefa calls the “value pillar” will in part be calculated on a club’s coefficient rating – historic performance.
Changing the Premier League’s PSR permitted losses limit is a fraught question given what has happened to Everton and Nottingham Forest over the last 12 months, and with Leicester City now facing potentially even greater sanctions over historic breaches. PSR is there to protect the Premier League and the competitive balance of the competition. But it is fighting against the measures that mean established Champions League clubs earn more in Europe regardless of performance.
The Uefa payments based on historic performance are the bad politics of an era that tried and failed to stop the original Super League breakaway – and have been allowed to remain as a compromise solution. They are the shadow of the attempt to create a Super League of permanent members. They are permitted by Uefa to survive in order to keep at bay subsequent proposals by the same lobby for a European league structure in which a newcomer like Villa would go into the third tier rather than the elite.
The problem for clubs like Villa is that they prevent them from investing anew when they reach the promised land of the Champions League. The €2.5 billion it generates should be distributed by Uefa as part equal share and part performance-related – and nothing in between.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 02, 2024, 03:56:50 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 02, 2024, 04:28:25 PM
Post by: AV82EC on June 02, 2024, 04:29:50 PM
Post by: olaftab on June 02, 2024, 04:37:50 PM
As an aside, do you need to be called Kieran and have an Irish surname to become a football finance expert?Not just Kieron you have have a full on Irish sounding surname as well. Fancy having a go, Kieron?
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 02, 2024, 05:17:49 PM
That was where I stopped reading.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 02, 2024, 05:45:30 PM
Jesus another journo not doing his research properly. I think you’ve been too kind to him there Percy.
Thing is, I’m not absolutely certain about this stuff, but I can see advantages we have, that a lot of journalists/commentators don’t seem to take into account. Over the last three-year period, we’ve sold Joe, Chucky, Philogene, Ramsey, and will have made some money at least from Archer’s loan. We’ve also seen turnover rise from £178m to £218m, and attendances rise from 792,000 to 1.13m. League position 14th, to 7th, to 4th, which of course brings accompanying prize money. Loads more live TV appearances, UECL prize money. Adidas and Betanu. Trade Nation, and probably all our existing sponsors paying more. Hefty increases in ticket prices. Adidas will deliver a hefty increase in merchandise sales as well as the lump sum for the sponsorship. When have you seen the doomsayers mentioning this stuff in their “they must sell by June” articles?
The owners will be aware of the ‘live’ situation of our accounts, and adoption of either ours or Palace’s proposals will provide another massive boost, because one thing I AM sure of is our owners will push to the very limit of allowable losses to make us competitive. If we DO sell somebody, it’s because they want to spend loads more on better players. So don’t think of it as the end of the world if it happens. A lot of the stuff I’ve mentioned above will not find its way into our accounts until the next two sets are released. Deloitte’s annual survey in December is the next one to look out for, as the clubs give them the latest turnover figure for the period up to June 30th this year. We’ll have to wait til the year after to see the effect of Champions League and new sponsorship.
I think the biggest harm to our PSR position was quite simply, Carpethead. The wages and ages of the players he bought, the 14th place finish, and paying him and his staff off. Thank god it didn’t last long, or we’d really be in the shit..
Post by: Mellin on June 02, 2024, 05:46:58 PM
"Whether that is accurate or not is one question..."
That was where I stopped reading.
Exactly the post I was scrolling down to make. Put in file bee one en.
Post by: tomd2103 on June 02, 2024, 06:00:20 PM
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is the "broadcast territory of each club"?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 02, 2024, 06:04:39 PM
"From next season, the weighting of Uefa Champions League payments via coefficient is woven into a more complex formula. It will in part be combined with the revenue Uefa earns from the broadcast territory of each club".
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is the "broadcast territory of each club"?
For us, England.
We’ll get more because English broadcasters pay more for Champions League rights.
Post by: aev on June 04, 2024, 03:46:11 PM
Post by: Drummond on June 04, 2024, 04:00:01 PM
exclusive
Claim has plunged top flight into civil war and hearing on Monday could change competition for ever – and help champions to see off 115 charges
Matt Lawton
, Chief Sports Correspondent
Tuesday June 04 2024, 3.20pm, The Times
Manchester City have launched an unprecedented legal action against the Premier League in a move that has sparked civil war in English football’s top flight.
The dispute, which has become a battle between the most powerful clubs in the country, will be settled after a two-week private arbitration hearing starting on Monday.
The outcome could dramatically alter the landscape of the professional game and have a significant impact on a separate hearing set for November into City’s 115 alleged breaches of the Premier League’s regulations and financial rules. That hearing, expected to last six weeks, could lead to massive fines for the club owners and possibly even relegation for Pep Guardiola’s all-conquering side.
At next week’s hearing, which has provoked bitter divisions between clubs, City will attempt to end the league’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which they claim are unlawful, and seek damages from the Premier League.
Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules are designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value” (FMV).
But within an 165-page legal document City argue that they are the victims of “discrimination”, describing rules they say have been approved by their rivals to stifle their success on the pitch as a “tyranny of the majority”.
If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment for the league, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.
The league’s other 19 clubs have been invited to participate in the legal action and The Times understands between ten and 12 have stepped forward, providing either witness statements or a letter detailing evidence in support of the Premier League’s defence against the claim. Those who have provided witness statements may be called by the tribunal to give evidence at the hearing.
As well as the impact it could have on the Premier League as a competition, clubs fear City’s claim could also be key to the outcome of the hearing into their 115 alleged breaches between 2009 and 2023, with sponsorship deals funded by companies linked to Abu Dhabi central to the accusations against them.
It has been alleged that City concealed payments made by their owner Sheikh Mansour through third parties and disguised them as sponsorship revenue, which in itself was inflated. Even before the more recent moves by the Premier League to tighten regulation around APTs, there was a requirement under the league’s rules that related party transactions must be of fair market value. If such rules are now deemed unlawful, it could significantly strengthen City’s defence at the hearing later this year. City have denied any wrongdoing relating to the 115 charges.
In February it was reported that the Premier League had warned its clubs of the threat of possible legal action by a club against its APT rules.
Now, The Times can confirm, City carried out that threat, filing their claim on February 16, with the Premier League informing its member clubs in March that a date of June 10 had been set for the hearing.
City are suing the Premier League for damages, while arguing that the league’s democratic system of requiring at least 14 clubs, or two-thirds of those who vote, to implement rule changes gives the majority unacceptable levels of control. They accuse rival clubs of “discrimination against Gulf ownership”, citing the comments of one particular senior club executive.
City argue that sponsors linked to club owners — City’s are in Abu Dhabi — should be allowed to determine how much they want to pay, regardless of independent valuation. Four of City’s top ten sponsors have ties to the United Arab Emirates, including stadium and shirt sponsor Etihad Airways.
Newcastle, which is majority-owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, have a shirt sponsorship deal with Sela, a Saudi sports rights company. Chelsea have a shirt deal with Infinite Athlete, a leisure company which counts the joint-Chelsea owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali among its investors.
While The Times knows of at least one club that has submitted a witness statement in support of City for next week’s arbitration hearing, sources believe more than half have sided with the Premier League. The Premier League invited clubs to submit their statements in a letter from their general counsel, Kevin Plumb, on March 1.
Despite just winning a record fourth successive Premier League title, City claim rules introduced two and a half years ago are restrictive and anti-competitive.
Their rivals believe what City are doing will actually destroy the competitiveness of the world’s most popular league, allowing clubs with super-rich owners to spend unlimited amounts of money on their playing squads and infrastructure and nullify Financial Fair Play rules.
Millions are being spent on legal fees to fight this case. One senior club source says the Premier League’s legal bill has more than quadrupled in the past year, from about £5million to north of £20million. They also point to the fact that since February the Premier League’s own legal department has been forced to shift its focus to this claim when it is also trying to prepare for the hearing into City’s 115 charges. “This is clearly a tactic,” the source said.
City have certainly spared no expense in their potentially groundbreaking legal fight. They have appointed three KCs, with Lord Pannick supported by Paul Harris and Rob Williams. A fourth senior barrister who specialises in competition and regulatory law, David Gregory, is also on City’s team.
In their claim City are seeking “damages for the losses which it has incurred as a result of the unlawfulness of the FMV [fair market value] rules”, in particular for costs resulting from delays, sums they claim were not paid under agreed deals and additional costs, including the club’s inability to generate revenue from delayed or cancelled projects. This, clubs believe, could potentially amount to tens of millions.
Indeed, City’s claim says the club are seeking a split trial, with the first part focused on the APT rules followed by a second to then determine damages.
In his letter to clubs on March 1, Plumb detailed the nature of City’s legal challenge under Section X of the Premier League rules.
Plumb explained how the Premier League had to secure an order that enabled it to disclose the details of the arbitration to its member clubs and confirm that it was indeed City who had filed a claim. “The purpose of this letter is to provide those further details, within the bounds of the confidentiality of the proceedings, and to confirm the process by which any club may participate in the arbitration,” Plumb states.
He explained to clubs the detail of City’s claim that the rules are contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
Plumb then said the Premier League’s independent legal counsel believes the rules are compatible with English law and that they will fight the legal action.
On February 26 a directions hearing in the arbitration took place, with the tribunal appointed to hear the case giving the Premier League permission to provide a redacted copy of City’s statement of claim to other clubs, because they may be affected by the outcome of the challenge.
The tribunal set a date for the final hearing to take place from June 10 to June 21, with all witness statements due to be submitted by March 28 in line with the deadline for the Premier League’s statement of defence.
Clubs were given the option of either intervening formally in the proceedings, upon receiving permission from the tribunal, or submitting factual evidence on relevant matters.
Within the City claim is a challenge to the voting system upon which the Premier League’s decision-making process has long been built, which requires two-thirds of clubs to support a rule change. They say this allows a majority of clubs to exert a “tyranny” that damages the minority.
City also claim the fair market value rules are intended to be discriminatory towards clubs with ties to the Gulf region.
The claim says the rules were imposed at the instigation of certain rival clubs reacting to the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, with the aim to “safeguard their own commercial advantages”. They say rivals were seeking to limit deals from companies in the Gulf region, citing a quote from a senior executive from another club.
They claim the rules were “deliberately intended to stifle commercial freedoms of particular clubs in particular circumstances, and thus to restrict economic competition”.
City also complain that, when it comes to negotiating any form of sponsorship agreement, clubs in the north are at a disadvantage to those in London, saying they can charge higher ticket prices. However, rival clubs estimate that, based on median ticket prices at the Etihad Stadium and the seven Premier League clubs in London, City are ranked third.
City blame the Premier League for not regulating spending when clubs such as Manchester United were more dominant, arguing they have been prevented from monetising their brand in the way United did. City also say the rules penalise clubs who have “lower-profile sporting histories”.
In their claim, City also dismiss concerns that an inflated sponsorship deal with a company linked to the club’s ownership could be vulnerable to a change of ownership.
“There is no rational or logical connection between a club’s financial non-sustainability and its receipt of revenues from entities linked to ownerships,” City’s claim states. They say companies would honour sponsorships even if the club was sold to new owners.
As one Premier League source observed, this overlooks the fact it is common for sponsorship contracts to have clauses that mean the terms change under new ownership.
City argue that the Premier League have failed to provide evidence that sponsorship deals with related parties give clubs an unfair advantage or distort the league’s competitive balance.
They also say that the Premier League, as an organisation, is a direct competitor for sponsorship and therefore claim they have a conflict of interest.
Further to that, City question the independence of Nielsen Sports, the data analytics company used to determine the fair market value of sponsorship deals, because it has been retained by the Premier League for more than two years.
City complain that FMV rules discriminate against clubs who form part of a multi-club ownership group, and only apply to commercial deals and not shareholder loans.
Ultimately, City stand accused of breaking financial rules to spend close to £2billion building a team that now dominates the Premier League and in the 2022-23 season won a European and domestic Treble.
In their claim, City argue that the current rules will limit their ability to buy the best players and force them to charge fans more for tickets. They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.
Premier League clubs have a scheduled meeting in Harrogate on Thursday.
Manchester City did not respond when contacted for comment. The Premier League has declined to comment.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 04, 2024, 04:07:44 PM
Post by: Drummond on June 04, 2024, 04:07:47 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 04, 2024, 04:08:10 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 04, 2024, 04:09:54 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 04, 2024, 04:11:21 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 04, 2024, 04:11:58 PM
I wonder which club wrote a letter in support of them.
The Birmingham City juggernaut.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 04, 2024, 04:13:34 PM
I wonder which club wrote a letter in support of them.
They want to be able to sponsor supporter's bellies, 5 mil for a row of fat bastards.
Post by: Ads on June 04, 2024, 04:15:39 PM
I wonder if they've issued so we could cop a look at their PoCs. The ADR could just be pre-issue time wasting.
Post by: KevinGage on June 04, 2024, 04:17:57 PM
Post by: Risso on June 04, 2024, 04:20:45 PM
Post by: Risso on June 04, 2024, 04:21:50 PM
Post by: Small Rodent on June 04, 2024, 04:36:46 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 04, 2024, 04:43:22 PM
it's always the bullies that claim they are the one's being discriminated against.
Amen...
Post by: KevinGage on June 04, 2024, 04:43:24 PM
It comes across as a desperate bit of deflection, TBH. But does it have any actual chance of success.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 04, 2024, 04:44:44 PM
Not that competition and regulatory law may be their thing, but interesting to hear from H&V's own legal eagles on this one.
It comes across as a desperate bit of deflection, TBH. But does it have any actual chance of success.
Well at the very least it gives them another bargaining chip. Let us off lightly and we will drop this potentially dangerous case.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 04, 2024, 04:47:06 PM
Although lets be honest, the way the government jumped in to help Jaudi Arabias takeover, anything is possible when legal jargon is twisted & there is added political pressure...
Post by: Gareth on June 04, 2024, 04:50:25 PM
Post by: frank black on June 04, 2024, 04:55:25 PM
Post by: OCD on June 04, 2024, 04:57:12 PM
Post by: Ads on June 04, 2024, 05:13:13 PM
If it’s successful , then it’s curtains for FFP and any form of control over spending.
It's ADR. The Premier League aren't going to agree away their rules in (what is likely) a pre-issue cost building/"look we tried to negotiate Court" exercise.
Post by: Ads on June 04, 2024, 05:16:42 PM
Post by: nigel on June 04, 2024, 05:28:29 PM
Scum. Utter scum. Fuck them off out the league and let em die.
To right,
Fuck them off to play in the Saudi Pro League with the rest of them
I would guess Newcastle are the supporting team.
Post by: VillaTim on June 04, 2024, 05:28:29 PM
Post by: Stu82 on June 04, 2024, 05:42:31 PM
Oh and fuck off Lord Pannick, the resolute man of the people mask slipping somewhat. Twat.
Spot on, when you think you can’t despise them anymore, they just turn it up another notch.
Shut them down.
Post by: Stu82 on June 04, 2024, 05:59:37 PM
it's always the bullies that claim they are the one's being discriminated against.
Picked wrong quote.
Post by: Brend'Watkins on June 04, 2024, 06:07:10 PM
Post by: KevinGage on June 04, 2024, 06:12:18 PM
It's not compulsory to be in the PL, is it? You voluntarily join any group, society or league and you might have the trifling inconvenience of abiding by their rules.
Post by: DB on June 04, 2024, 06:17:06 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 04, 2024, 06:17:35 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 04, 2024, 06:20:34 PM
The absolute brass neck of them to be suing the Premier League. I have no love for Masters and his cohorts but i'm on their side on this one . Wankers.
The Premier League is owned by the 20 clubs. So you’re on the side of the 19 other clubs on this one.
Post by: VillaTim on June 04, 2024, 06:24:03 PM
Oh, so C115y are suing the other 19 clubs , us amongst them. Twats.The absolute brass neck of them to be suing the Premier League. I have no love for Masters and his cohorts but i'm on their side on this one . Wankers.
The Premier League is owned by the 20 clubs. So you’re on the side of the 19 other clubs on this one.
Post by: Mellin on June 04, 2024, 06:31:17 PM
Hopefully the "tyranny of the majority", by which they mean democracy, the fucking twats, and judicial process fire these self-entitled, lying shitehawks into the vastness of oblivion.
Post by: spartacuss on June 04, 2024, 06:34:14 PM
Post by: London Villan on June 04, 2024, 06:36:03 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 04, 2024, 06:45:03 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 04, 2024, 06:57:52 PM
Post by: Astnor on June 04, 2024, 07:21:14 PM
Like being caught fucking around by your wife while in the act which she always suspected you did anyway. And then having the cheek to tell her it's because she didn't let you fuck around and your life is restrictive and unfair.This must be what is called (100%) egocentric.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 04, 2024, 07:22:56 PM
Like being caught fucking around by your wife while in the act which she always suspected you did anyway. And then having the cheek to tell her it's because she didn't let you fuck around and your life is restrictive and unfair.
As someone who's never cheated on a girlfriend, do you have an analogy I can relate to?
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 04, 2024, 07:28:06 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 04, 2024, 07:50:23 PM
What would be nice is if this could be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the allegations against (rather than prove they’re innocent) and consequently increase the severity of the punishment.Fuck them off to the Saudi League .
Post by: OCD on June 04, 2024, 09:35:10 PM
Disclosure and Inspection. We're not American.
I'm binge-watching Suits again though.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 04, 2024, 09:35:51 PM
What would be nice is if this could be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the allegations against (rather than prove they’re innocent) and consequently increase the severity of the punishment.Fuck them off to the Saudi League .
Why the Saudi one?
Post by: tomd2103 on June 05, 2024, 12:48:57 AM
Post by: jwarry on June 05, 2024, 06:58:40 AM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 05, 2024, 09:52:25 AM
This is really simple for the Premier League, if the majority are against what they are doing then they should threaten them with expulsion for not abiding by the rules - and no lingering about, set a deadline of 4 weeks before the beginning of next season to back down
This.
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 09:58:12 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 05, 2024, 10:02:18 AM
Premier League opened pandora's box when they let these gangsters buy man city. They ushered geopolitics into proceedings, whereby any punishment meted out to man city will reflect badly on a strategic partner of the UK. I can't see anything untoward happening to man city due to this.
Is it folly to hope that the impending change in government my open a window of opportunity to give them a shoeing?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 05, 2024, 10:30:03 AM
Premier League opened pandora's box when they let these gangsters buy man city. They ushered geopolitics into proceedings, whereby any punishment meted out to man city will reflect badly on a strategic partner of the UK. I can't see anything untoward happening to man city due to this.
Is it folly to hope that the impending change in government my open a window of opportunity to give them a shoeing?
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Post by: Lsvilla on June 05, 2024, 10:35:23 AM
Yep. This is the time for the clubs to step up for the preservation of competition. And if they threaten another ESL then call their bluff. It's unlikely the other protagonists fans would support any other English club joining them so they'd be properly out on a limb. Fuck 'em.This is really simple for the Premier League, if the majority are against what they are doing then they should threaten them with expulsion for not abiding by the rules - and no lingering about, set a deadline of 4 weeks before the beginning of next season to back down
This.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 05, 2024, 10:41:34 AM
The idea of their scum owners setting up their own super league and offering billions in prize money to lure away the greedy bastards is a danger.
But they'd have to weigh that up against the problems of signing up to a league run by one of the teams and whose existence is solely down to that team not wanting to listen to other teams.
Post by: Drummond on June 05, 2024, 12:38:08 PM
I think Man City fucking off would be quite popular amongst the other clubs.
The idea of their scum owners setting up their own super league and offering billions in prize money to lure away the greedy bastards is a danger.
But they'd have to weigh that up against the problems of signing up to a league run by one of the teams and whose existence is solely down to that team not wanting to listen to other teams.
Ah, the ESL again. Them, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus. They could just play each other once a month.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 05, 2024, 12:45:24 PM
And during a time where there is no football on too.
They spent hours talking about Chelseas new manager search & that little gimp with his three phones trying to convince everybody that Maresca is elite level.
But the 115 charges & legal action?
Fucking tumbleweed...
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 05, 2024, 12:49:26 PM
One thing that is quite noticeable about this legal action, as it has been during the 115 charges, is that the media are fucking silent over the whole thing.
And during a time where there is no football on too.
They spent hours talking about Chelseas new manager search & that little gimp with his three phones trying to convince everybody that Maresca is elite level.
But the 115 charges & legal action?
Fucking tumbleweed...
Tbf, I’ve seen it on every news outlet I’ve been on.
Post by: Ads on June 05, 2024, 12:50:25 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 05, 2024, 12:52:10 PM
Normally they are talking to death the details that are tenuously linked to a story...
Post by: KevinGage on June 05, 2024, 12:58:10 PM
I think Man City fucking off would be quite popular amongst the other clubs.
The idea of their scum owners setting up their own super league and offering billions in prize money to lure away the greedy bastards is a danger.
But they'd have to weigh that up against the problems of signing up to a league run by one of the teams and whose existence is solely down to that team not wanting to listen to other teams.
Ah, the ESL again. Them, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus. They could just play each other once a month.
In perpetuity, with no chance of parole.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 05, 2024, 02:58:22 PM
This looks like. a nuisance case. Where an aggressive usually self funded nut job keeps lobbing spurious claims against an institution in the hope that something will stick. On this occasion it is a lawyered up very rich claimant.
If the PL holds its nerve and is prepared to fight this, it will get dismissed but it does create a level of leverage in respect of the outcome of the 115 charges.
This will have created a chasm between Citeh, its allies and the rest of the PL teams.
Post by: tomd2103 on June 05, 2024, 05:30:28 PM
One thing that is quite noticeable about this legal action, as it has been during the 115 charges, is that the media are fucking silent over the whole thing.
And during a time where there is no football on too.
They spent hours talking about Chelseas new manager search & that little gimp with his three phones trying to convince everybody that Maresca is elite level.
But the 115 charges & legal action?
Fucking tumbleweed...
Given their owners, this isn't just a football issue. It's a political hot potato as well and I'm sure there are a number of people in a few corridors of power who don't want their owners to be upset in any way.
Post by: DB on June 05, 2024, 05:33:15 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 05, 2024, 05:35:03 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 05, 2024, 05:44:27 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on June 05, 2024, 06:03:26 PM
The membership rules are straightforward and set by a majority of 14 out of 20 clubs (the FA holds a "golden vote" which it has never excercised).
As a member, you abide by the rules.
If you don't like them, you try and persuade the other members to back any changes you wish to suggest.
If you lose and still don't like the rules, you can fuck off.
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 06:16:47 PM
They obviously wouldn't be making this much fuss if they were guilty. Surely we can just trust them at their word? They seem a pretty principled bunch to me.
Hello!
I was thinking this earlier actually, after reflecting on my previous post. Why press the nuclear button now and demand they can get as much money as they want through sponsorship deals when they're accused of over-inflating sponsorship deals in order to by-pass FFP/PSR, which they are adamant they are innocent of? Bad news? Heard they're likely to be done big time?
The quote in their complaint - "Tyranny of the majority" - after winning the prem for the 4th time in a row no less, is specifically anti-democratic and fully inline with the values of the gangsters who own that club.
Post by: Mellin on June 05, 2024, 09:14:05 PM
Quote
See for example the deeply cynical Trumpian framing, the idea that this is a battle being fought against “the elites”. Here we have a richer-than-god inherited monarchy, owners of the most powerful football club in the world, somehow presenting themselves as outsiders. When will the boundlessly rich kings and princes of the overclass finally be allowed to take a seat at the top table? Other than now, and for ever, in every single sphere of life?
Barney Ronay hitting nail square on head here.
Rancid.
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 09:18:30 PM
QuoteSee for example the deeply cynical Trumpian framing, the idea that this is a battle being fought against “the elites”. Here we have a richer-than-god inherited monarchy, owners of the most powerful football club in the world, somehow presenting themselves as outsiders. When will the boundlessly rich kings and princes of the overclass finally be allowed to take a seat at the top table? Other than now, and for ever, in every single sphere of life?
Barney Ronay hitting nail square on head here.
Rancid.
Article: Manchester City’s Trumpian tactics spotlight autocratic creep in football (https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/05/manchester-citys-trumpian-tactics-spotlight-autocratic-creep-in-football)
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 05, 2024, 09:26:10 PM
QuoteSee for example the deeply cynical Trumpian framing, the idea that this is a battle being fought against “the elites”. Here we have a richer-than-god inherited monarchy, owners of the most powerful football club in the world, somehow presenting themselves as outsiders. When will the boundlessly rich kings and princes of the overclass finally be allowed to take a seat at the top table? Other than now, and for ever, in every single sphere of life?
Barney Ronay hitting nail square on head here.
Rancid.
Article: Manchester City’s Trumpian tactics spotlight autocratic creep in football (https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/05/manchester-citys-trumpian-tactics-spotlight-autocratic-creep-in-football)
without reading it (I will) does it basically say they are using the Trump tactic of deny, deny, deny, followed by deflect and project, combined with appeal everything to slow it all down?
Post by: Dave on June 05, 2024, 09:45:06 PM
Quote
At least three clubs (Chelsea, Villa, Newcastle) have sympathy for Manchester City & their war on Premier League.
Yeuch.
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 09:45:20 PM
QuoteSee for example the deeply cynical Trumpian framing, the idea that this is a battle being fought against “the elites”. Here we have a richer-than-god inherited monarchy, owners of the most powerful football club in the world, somehow presenting themselves as outsiders. When will the boundlessly rich kings and princes of the overclass finally be allowed to take a seat at the top table? Other than now, and for ever, in every single sphere of life?
Barney Ronay hitting nail square on head here.
Rancid.
Article: Manchester City’s Trumpian tactics spotlight autocratic creep in football (https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/05/manchester-citys-trumpian-tactics-spotlight-autocratic-creep-in-football)
without reading it (I will) does it basically say they are using the Trump tactic of deny, deny, deny, followed by deflect and project, combined with appeal everything to slow it all down?
"Allow hyper-ambitious nation states to buy your sporting institutions, and, well, you might just end up with an unhappy hyper-ambitious nation state on your hands. Not to mention a sense that nobody, right now, has any kind of control over how this ends up.
More immediately, scanning down the public details of City’s legal claim, it is hard to decide which is the most nauseating aspect of the whole affair. Perhaps it is the ragbag of populism and hot-button shouting tagged on by City’s lawyers and mouthpieces.
See for example the deeply cynical Trumpian framing, the idea that this is a battle being fought against “the elites”. Here we have a richer-than-god inherited monarchy, owners of the most powerful football club in the world, somehow presenting themselves as outsiders. When will the boundlessly rich kings and princes of the overclass finally be allowed to take a seat at the top table? Other than now, and for ever, in every single sphere of life?"
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 09:45:53 PM
(Daily Heil)QuoteAt least three clubs (Chelsea, Villa, Newcastle) have sympathy for Manchester City & their war on Premier League.
Yeuch.
Ugh.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 05, 2024, 09:47:18 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 05, 2024, 09:48:38 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 05, 2024, 09:49:35 PM
(Daily Heil)QuoteAt least three clubs (Chelsea, Villa, Newcastle) have sympathy for Manchester City & their war on Premier League.
Yeuch.
What lovely company we are in, there.
Post by: VillaTim on June 05, 2024, 09:50:54 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 05, 2024, 09:51:25 PM
(Daily Heil)QuoteAt least three clubs (Chelsea, Villa, Newcastle) have sympathy for Manchester City & their war on Premier League.
Yeuch.
Ugh.
I would imagine it is a sympathy on the overall situation of not being able to compete. That doesn’t mean they condone the actual actions City have made
Post by: Monty on June 05, 2024, 09:51:42 PM
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 09:54:30 PM
Villa want greater allowable losses. is that the same as having sympathy for Man City who likely broke every rule which now means clubs like ours cannot ever catch up? Which is precisely what they want. They are fucked off that they can't spend anything they want to keep up with Real Madrid and their CL dominance. They don't give a fuck about the competitiveness of the PL.
If Villa are actually backing this move from man city then the owners must believe they can get colossal outsized sponsorships and whatever external funding. I feel a little sick.
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2024, 09:55:06 PM
FFP is an absolute joke - but everyone has to abide by the same rules, and not doing so (allegedly) would damage the competition, its integrity and its long term future.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 05, 2024, 09:57:07 PM
🚨 It is understood that Villa co-owner, Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak & that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.
@MikeKeegan_DM
#avfc
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2024, 09:58:01 PM
Count Bin Face is right - Croissants are too expensive - doesn't mean I think he should be mayor of London
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 05, 2024, 09:58:33 PM
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2024, 10:02:13 PM
We’ve got the richest non-state backed owners in the world. They must think we’re nailed on for third if there’s a free-for-all.I don't think they are naive enough to think this. They may be frustrated that they see the progress of there project is blocked by these rules - but ultimately - they are business men.
They don't want to throw money away - but probably think that having to sell our best players to keep compliant with a rule about beating down competition isn't a great state to be in.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 05, 2024, 10:03:06 PM
We’ve got the richest non-state backed owners in the world. They must think we’re nailed on for third if there’s a free-for-all.
We wouldn't have the third richest owners for very long if all restrictions on very rich owners are removed.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 05, 2024, 10:06:01 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 05, 2024, 10:08:25 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 05, 2024, 10:11:58 PM
@villareportOh dear . I hope this isn't true . Very very sickening if it is.
🚨 It is understood that Villa co-owner, Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak & that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.
@MikeKeegan_DM
#avfc
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 05, 2024, 10:14:19 PM
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2024, 10:14:59 PM
I read that as they are not happy with current rules. As TV - I think its a big jump to say they support Man City's alleged ignoring of the rules
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2024, 10:16:30 PM
I don’t see what’s disappointing about it. NSWE have money to spend that they have made legitimately through business ventures. We are now in a position to accelerate our position and fortify our standing in the PL and Europe and we are being told we need to sell off our best players to do so. That’s what is disappointing. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some measure of control to create a more level playing field. But this is all happening after Man City and Chelsea before them got fat off money attained via political favouritism or simply being a country which no other team can compete with. And Man City broke rules and lied about them to get a massive advantage on every other team.This is my take on it.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 05, 2024, 10:16:42 PM
I don’t see what’s disappointing about it. NSWE have money to spend that they have made legitimately through business ventures. We are now in a position to accelerate our position and fortify our standing in the PL and Europe and we are being told we need to sell off our best players to do so. That’s what is disappointing. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some measure of control to create a more level playing field. But this is all happening after Man City and Chelsea before them got fat off money attained via political favouritism or simply being a country which no other team can compete with. And Man City broke rules and lied about them to get a massive advantage on every other team.
What's disappointing is that our owners seemingly sympathise with their plight.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 05, 2024, 10:17:59 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 05, 2024, 10:19:36 PM
I don’t see what’s disappointing about it. NSWE have money to spend that they have made legitimately through business ventures. We are now in a position to accelerate our position and fortify our standing in the PL and Europe and we are being told we need to sell off our best players to do so. That’s what is disappointing. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some measure of control to create a more level playing field. But this is all happening after Man City and Chelsea before them got fat off money attained via political favouritism or simply being a country which no other team can compete with. And Man City broke rules and lied about them to get a massive advantage on every other team.
What's disappointing is that our owners seemingly sympathise with their plight.
According to the Daily Mail who have spun it that way. It doesn’t say we sympathize with Man City in their 115 charges. It assumes our owners might align on aspects of their argument but it’s worded to suggest that somehow we sympathize with them in what is being alleged. It doesn’t say that anywhere.
Post by: LeeB on June 05, 2024, 10:20:05 PM
If we do, we're being pathetically short-sighted. We think we'll ever compete financially with the Emiratis and the Saudis? Turkeys and Christmas.
No, but we might want to eventually sell to them.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 05, 2024, 10:23:02 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 05, 2024, 10:23:53 PM
Exactly this. Any sort of support or words of sympathy or encouragement for C115y are sickening to hear.I don’t see what’s disappointing about it. NSWE have money to spend that they have made legitimately through business ventures. We are now in a position to accelerate our position and fortify our standing in the PL and Europe and we are being told we need to sell off our best players to do so. That’s what is disappointing. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some measure of control to create a more level playing field. But this is all happening after Man City and Chelsea before them got fat off money attained via political favouritism or simply being a country which no other team can compete with. And Man City broke rules and lied about them to get a massive advantage on every other team.
What's disappointing is that our owners seemingly sympathise with their plight.
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2024, 10:28:54 PM
Thinking that FFP should be radically changed is not the same. FFP is bollocks, the "sky six" have nearly 2bn in debt. Everton are in trouble because they have debt they can't pay. That risks the future of clubs. Having to sell Dougie so we can avoid points being deducted whilst at the same time having 0 debts makes no sense. And If I was Nas or Wes I would think the whole thing stank and want it changed.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 05, 2024, 10:33:42 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 05, 2024, 10:36:03 PM
What Man City have done among a load of other blatantly corrrupt things is overvalued sponsorship deals with companies that they essentially own. Like Nas owning Betano and declaring the new deal is worth a billion quid just to make it appear we are receiving that money cleanly and without a conflict of interest. I'm pretty sure our owners aren't down with that when we are stuck with deals that are much less lucrative.
Well, it looks like we're prepared to overlook that stuff if we're 'sympathetic' to them.
It is disappointing on a 'wrong side of the argument' level, but it also strikes me as a bit naive, because if you go that way, we have a competing club in Newcastle whose owners own, not literally but not far off, a money-printing machine which can churn out endless funds.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 05, 2024, 10:37:42 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 05, 2024, 10:40:12 PM
Post by: Bad English on June 05, 2024, 10:44:04 PM
Count Bin Face is right - Croissants are too expensive - doesn't mean I think he should be mayor of LondonCroissants from a boulangerie are about €1.20 here. How much are they in Lahndahn?
Post by: Nev on June 05, 2024, 10:49:59 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 05, 2024, 10:50:46 PM
We’ve got the richest non-state backed owners in the world. They must think we’re nailed on for third if there’s a free-for-all.
We wouldn't have the third richest owners for very long if all restrictions on very rich owners are removed.
Richest non-state backed. Not a sure thing that many will come in who are richer than Comcast.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 05, 2024, 10:51:12 PM
As Dave so often said, we eventually become what we hate.....
You'll be voting Tory next. ;)
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 05, 2024, 10:52:26 PM
We’ve got the richest non-state backed owners in the world. They must think we’re nailed on for third if there’s a free-for-all.
We wouldn't have the third richest owners for very long if all restrictions on very rich owners are removed.
Richest non-state backed. Not a sure thing that many will come in who are richer than Comcast.
Missed that bit, sorry.
Post by: Stu on June 05, 2024, 10:56:14 PM
Count Bin Face is right - Croissants are too expensive - doesn't mean I think he should be mayor of LondonCroissants from a boulangerie are about €1.20 here. How much are they in Lahndahn?
At the work cafe they’re the same-ish price but clearly mass produced at a factory somewhere and obviously not as rich in butter or as fluffy as the real deal. Also if you get them about 10 mins after arrival they’re already off and crispy.
All of these issues are the same in London except they cost about five quid.
Post by: Dave on June 05, 2024, 11:32:36 PM
Quote
BREAKING: However, it’s expected a separate proposal from Aston Villa to increase the amount of money clubs can lose under PSR rules over a three-year period from £105m to £135m will get the go-ahead.
- talkSPORT sources understand
Post by: Monty on June 05, 2024, 11:33:15 PM
If we do, we're being pathetically short-sighted. We think we'll ever compete financially with the Emiratis and the Saudis? Turkeys and Christmas.
No, but we might want to eventually sell to them.
At which point, as I've said before, I'm out.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 05, 2024, 11:36:16 PM
QuoteBREAKING: However, it’s expected a separate proposal from Aston Villa to increase the amount of money clubs can lose under PSR rules over a three-year period from £105m to £135m will get the go-ahead.
- talkSPORT sources understand
Doesn't really make sense to me but... okay.
Post by: robleflaneur on June 05, 2024, 11:43:47 PM
Count Bin Face is right - Croissants are too expensive - doesn't mean I think he should be mayor of LondonCroissants from a boulangerie are about €1.20 here. How much are they in Lahndahn?
At the work cafe they’re the same-ish price but clearly mass produced at a factory somewhere and obviously not as rich in butter or as fluffy as the real deal. Also if you get them about 10 mins after arrival they’re already off and crispy.
All of these issues are the same in London except they cost about five quid.
75p in Lidl and brilliant.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 05, 2024, 11:45:24 PM
QuoteBREAKING: However, it’s expected a separate proposal from Aston Villa to increase the amount of money clubs can lose under PSR rules over a three-year period from £105m to £135m will get the go-ahead.
- talkSPORT sources understand
Doesn't really make sense to me but... okay.
The owners want to push to the limit of allowable losses, that puts the limit up £30m. Excellent news if true.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 05, 2024, 11:50:04 PM
As you say, could be good for us and I'm not moaning about it. Just curious as to the justification behind it.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 06, 2024, 12:03:00 AM
Yeah I understand it, I just don't get the logic behind it. Sure, inflation means that you spend more money, but it should also increase your income, too. So no real reason to increase the allowable nett total.
As you say, could be good for us and I'm not moaning about it. Just curious as to the justification behind it.
Ah, gotcha. To be honest, the only thing that ever matters to me are the three words in your post that say ‘good for us’. Selfish I know.
Post by: jwarry on June 06, 2024, 06:41:49 AM
Hypocritical City’s only motive was sportswashing but league cheered them in
Panicking powerbrokers now realise the scale of their error – unless these cuckoo owners are expelled from the nest, English football’s whole ecosystem faces collapse
Did they suppose the document would never leak? Did they not count on the brilliant investigative reporters at Times Sport, the best in the business? Did they hope that their perversion of the words of John Stuart Mill, in his wonderful tome On Liberty, would never see the light of day? Or do they no longer care about how they look, knowing that a proportion of Manchester City fans will take to social media to defend the indefensible, turning tribal allegiance into an advanced form of cognitive dissonance?
“The tyranny of the majority” is the breathtaking claim of City. They argue that their freedom to make money has been limited by the Premier League’s rules on sponsorship deals, which forbid related companies (such as Etihad Airways sponsoring a team backed by Abu Dhabi) from offering cash above the commercial rate determined by an independent assessor. They say they are being persecuted, held back by a cartel of legacy clubs that want to monopolise success at their expense.
I am guessing that all fans will see through this comedy gold. City have won the past four Premier League titles and more than 57 per cent of the available domestic trophies over the past seven years. According to my former colleague Tony Evans, this makes them the most dominant side in top-flight history: more dominant than Liverpool in the Seventies and Eighties (41 per cent), more dominant than Manchester United in the Nineties (33 per cent).
Indeed, they are almost as dominant as the emirate of Abu Dhabi, which understands the concept of tyranny quite well having engaged in human rights abuses of a kind that led Amnesty International to question its treatment of immigrant workers and to condemn the arbitrary detention of 26 prisoners of conscience.
But dominance is, as Einstein might have said, a relative term. City want more money than they have at present, more dominance than they enjoy now, more freedom to spend on players (their bench is worth more than the first teams of most of their rivals) so that they can win, what, 40 league titles in a row? That would indeed turn the Premier League from what many regard as a fairly enjoyable competition into a tyranny of the minority.
And this is why the story revealed by my colleague Matt Lawton will cause the scales to fall from the eyes of all but the most biased of observers. The motive of City’s owners is not principally about football, the Premier League or, indeed, Manchester. As many warned from the outset, this was always a scheme of sportswashing, a strategy of furthering the interests of a microstate in the Middle East. It is in effect leveraging the soft power of football, its cultural cachet, to launder its reputation. This is why it is furious about quaint rules on spending limits thwarting the kind of power that, back home, is untrammelled.
And let us be clear about what all this means. An emirate, whose government is autocratic and therefore not subject to the full rule of law, is paying for a squad of eye-wateringly expensive lawyers to pursue a case in British courts that directly violates British interests. For whatever one thinks about what the Premier League has become, there is no doubt that its success has benefited the UK, not just in terms of the estimated contribution to the economy of £8billion in 2021-22, but also through a tax contribution of £4.2billion and thousands of jobs.
Yet what would happen if the spending taps were allowed to be turned full tilt by removing restraints related to “associated partners”? That’s right: what remains of competitive balance would be destroyed, decimating the league’s prestige and appeal.
Remember a few years ago when leaked emails showed that Khaldoon al-Mubarak, the City chairman, “would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next ten years”. Isn’t it funny that such people love the rule of law abroad — seeing it as a vehicle for outspending counterparties on expensive litigation — almost as much as they fear it at home? It’s as though City have ditched any pretence to care about anything except the geopolitical interests of their owners. What’s certain is that the Premier League can no longer cope with multiple City lawsuits and has had to hire outside help. In this case, as in so many others, the rule of law is morphing into something quite different: the rule of lawyers.
In some ways you almost feel like saying to football’s now panicking powerbrokers: it serves you right. These people welcomed Roman Abramovich, then stood wide-eyed while state actors entered the game too. They surely cannot be too surprised that the logical endpoint for this greed and connivance is that the blue-ribband event of English football is now fighting for its survival. When you sup with Mephistopheles, you can’t complain when the old fella returns to claim his side of the bargain.
But the dominant sense today is the shameless hypocrisy of the owners of City. They said that they were investing in City because they cared about regenerating the area. They now say that unless they get their own way, they are likely to stop community funding. They said that the commercial deals were within the rules; they now say that the rules are illegal. They said that competitive balance was important for English football; they now want to destroy it. They said they were happy with the democratic ethos of Premier League decision-making; now they hilariously say it’s oppressive.
I suspect at least some City fans are uncomfortable with this brazenness and may even be belatedly reassessing the true motives of the club’s owners. What’s now clear is that cuckoos have been let into the Premier League nest. Unless they are properly confronted or ejected, they could now threaten the whole ecosystem of English football.
Post by: lovejoy on June 06, 2024, 07:07:49 AM
Yeah I understand it, I just don't get the logic behind it. Sure, inflation means that you spend more money, but it should also increase your income, too. So no real reason to increase the allowable nett total.
As you say, could be good for us and I'm not moaning about it. Just curious as to the justification behind it.
But if you are loss making the absolute value of your costs are higher so, assuming inflation is the same on costs and income, your losses will increase.
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 08:43:27 AM
Man City*
Post by: Beard82 on June 06, 2024, 09:02:25 AM
I don't see how the PL and Man City both survive in the medium term. Surely it's got to be one or the other.
Basically City are saying we're not abiding by the rules, or we'll sue you. Which means the whole league a joke and the PL is basically mortally wounded. Or Man City get thrown out.
Bloody typical, the Villa finally become good again, only for the English football to collapse.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 06, 2024, 09:04:36 AM
I don't see any way out of this. It suggests that whatever sanctions Man City faced were significant enough to cause great concern at the club. So we're kind of at the brink.
I don't see how the PL and Man City both survive in the medium term. Surely it's got to be one or the other.
Basically City are saying we're not abiding by the rules, or we'll sue you. Which means the whole league a joke and the PL is basically mortally wounded. Or Man City get thrown out.
Bloody typical, the Villa finally become good again, only for the English football to collapse.
The lengths they’ll all go to to stop us.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 06, 2024, 09:06:07 AM
You are right, this is a fundamental attack on their right to govern football in England. They have to stand up and fight to the death...
Unfortunately they have a history of chasing the money like a horny hound following a bitch in heat.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 09:09:29 AM
Post by: Beard82 on June 06, 2024, 09:13:05 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 09:13:38 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 09:15:10 AM
Thats the problem, what will happen is there will be some agreement that means Man City are let off or effectively let off.
Can’t be done though, or it’s essentially the same outcome and the rules are meaningless.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 06, 2024, 09:17:39 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 06, 2024, 09:21:05 AM
But it won't be.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 06, 2024, 09:22:01 AM
Surely they have to be kicked out, for good? I know it's easier said than done, but otherwise the already hopelessly skewed league is doomed.
Exactly, they've already pretty much broken the league, and now they want to make it so nobody can ever have a chance of toppling them in future.
They're scum, they literally don't understand the term 'sporting', all they understand is getting everything they want.
Post by: Beard82 on June 06, 2024, 09:23:24 AM
I think that is part of the opportunism of the legal action Man City are taking - knowing a lot of the other PL clubs are frustrated with the "status quo"
Post by: Risso on June 06, 2024, 09:27:12 AM
Surely they have to be kicked out, for good? I know it's easier said than done, but otherwise the already hopelessly skewed league is doomed.
Exactly, they've already pretty much broken the league, and now they want to make it so nobody can ever have a chance of toppling them in future.
They're scum, they literally don't understand the term 'sporting', all they understand is getting everything they want.
Exactly. All that "tyranny of the majority" rubbish. We call that "democracy" over here, sunshine.
Post by: LeeB on June 06, 2024, 09:28:14 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on June 06, 2024, 09:31:47 AM
It doesn't help that the rules have proven to be a complete farce and cause frustrations for all clubs - like you say - it's all of the PL making, and the clubs that voted for it.
I think that is part of the opportunism of the legal action Man City are taking - knowing a lot of the other PL clubs are frustrated with the "status quo"
Are they? Wolves have tabled a motion for a vote on the use of VAR. We have tabled on the motion to change the values of the PSR from 105-135. There was a vote the other month about some other PSR changes as well. That is the format that should have been done, not fucking a nuclear legal option because they don't like something but 67% won't vote for it to be removed. (With at least that amount voting for the rules in the first place).
The legal option is just to delay the 115 charges again (which was supposed to have been May but has been sent to November) and to make the prem spend more on legal fees themselves. Maybe some club should put forward a vote that legal fee spent by the club to battle the PL should be included in PSR expenses. Afterall they are "football" costs.
Post by: Beard82 on June 06, 2024, 09:32:30 AM
The PL gives in there ruined
Man City give in their ruined
Neither give in were all ruined
Both give in (i.e. some kind of fudge) Man City and PL both survive. The integrity of the competition is ruined (i.e. the status quo).
It will end up with some fudge which means Man City gets off effectively.
Post by: Nev on June 06, 2024, 09:33:41 AM
The one good thing that has come out of this is that S115 have won the majority of honours through nefarious means, they've more or less admitted this so me shouting "cheats!" seconds after they lift a trophy doesn't sound so bitter and pathetic now. Nice one Joe.
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 09:42:58 AM
1) Open the flood gates and let the richest folk in the world own our clubs, spend potentially trillions and do what they want.
2) Or, keep tightening the shackles and try and maintain 'a level playing field' for all English clubs as much as possible.
Tighten the shackles and Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia etc will simply jump ship and invest their billions elsewhere.
You can guarantee clubs like Juventus, Milan, Inter etc and their Spanish counterparts are waiting with baited breath!! They wont turn their nose up at billions or trilllions.
The Premier League could pale into insignificance.
What a dilimma.
Post by: Monty on June 06, 2024, 09:53:47 AM
Post by: Stu on June 06, 2024, 09:58:38 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 06, 2024, 09:59:28 AM
They're weak as piss. It's almost inevitable that the outcome will be City drop their lawsuit and in return get the most modest of slaps on the wrist for the 115. They will have played a blinder.
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 10:01:39 AM
Milan and Inter, maybe, but Juve (Agnelli vanity project), Real, and Barça (literally legally enforced) could only come to the sort of minority investment agreements that don't interest the sheikhs at all. More likely they'd just pile all their money into an acquirable and growable outsider club like Man City were - Lazio maybe.
Unfortunately, money always talks and some country out there will be contriving to open the doors to the ultra rich, no restraints and attract the world's best players.
Basically, replace the English Premier League.
Post by: Monty on June 06, 2024, 10:04:17 AM
Milan and Inter, maybe, but Juve (Agnelli vanity project), Real, and Barça (literally legally enforced) could only come to the sort of minority investment agreements that don't interest the sheikhs at all. More likely they'd just pile all their money into an acquirable and growable outsider club like Man City were - Lazio maybe.
Unfortunately, money always talks and some country out there will be contriving to open the doors to the ultra rich, no restraints and attract the world's best players.
Basically, replace the English Premier League.
Well, Girona and Palermo are already owned by the City group multiclub thing. The intention there is more to make them feeder clubs to City, but if things turn south in England I'm sure they'd be happy to expand their ambitions elsewhere.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 06, 2024, 10:04:19 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 06, 2024, 10:05:41 AM
Milan and Inter, maybe, but Juve (Agnelli vanity project), Real, and Barça (literally legally enforced) could only come to the sort of minority investment agreements that don't interest the sheikhs at all. More likely they'd just pile all their money into an acquirable and growable outsider club like Man City were - Lazio maybe.
Unfortunately, money always talks and some country out there will be contriving to open the doors to the ultra rich, no restraints and attract the world's best players.
Basically, replace the English Premier League.
It happened at PSG and yet still nobody gives a toss about the French League.
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 10:12:57 AM
Milan and Inter, maybe, but Juve (Agnelli vanity project), Real, and Barça (literally legally enforced) could only come to the sort of minority investment agreements that don't interest the sheikhs at all. More likely they'd just pile all their money into an acquirable and growable outsider club like Man City were - Lazio maybe.
Unfortunately, money always talks and some country out there will be contriving to open the doors to the ultra rich, no restraints and attract the world's best players.
Basically, replace the English Premier League.
It happened at PSG and yet still nobody gives a toss about the French League.
Yes, but if approached by the ultra rich, other clubs in France like Marseille, Lyon and St Etienne etc may not think twice. However, it is more likely to be the Spanish or Italians who are plotting as we speak.
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 06, 2024, 10:13:48 AM
Edit - Just seen it. Never mind
Post by: Monty on June 06, 2024, 10:14:58 AM
When al-Mubarak warned the EPL were at risk of killing the 'competitiveness' of the league...I don't know. I can't believe Tom Lehrer survived it. 6 titles in 7 years, yeah that's real competitive. The PSG model, wow look at how great it is for the league.
Words cannot express how much I hate these people.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 10:20:48 AM
I haven’t seen it posted (might have missed it) but the Daily Heil are saying us, Newcastle and Chelsea are backing Man City.
Edit - Just seen it. Never mind
I haven’t seen it posted (might have missed it) but the Daily Heil are saying us, Newcastle and Chelsea are backing Man City.
Edit - Just seen it. Never mind
As has been said I really hope that is deliberately sensationalist language, but either way it doesn’t look great. I would hope we only want some revision of the controls so they’re more appropriate, rather than the rules to go away. We should not be remotely aligned with Citeh, Chelsea and the Barcodes.
Post by: LeeB on June 06, 2024, 10:22:10 AM
In fact, it's severely stunted the growth of Ligue 1, as nobody cares about it as a spectacle.
When al-Mubarak warned the EPL were at risk of killing the 'competitiveness' of the league...I don't know. I can't believe Tom Lehrer survived it. 6 titles in 7 years, yeah that's real competitive. The PSG model, wow look at how great it is for the league.
Words cannot express how much I hate these people.
Yes.
I always try and picture the type of people they would have been from my own childhood, because on a mental level that's what you're dealing with, as people with this kind of wealth don't develop like normal humans.
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 10:25:31 AM
The PL are as much to blame by allowing this to drag on for years. They should have sorted it at at the first breach, not allow City to hoover up trophies for the next 10 seasons.
They're weak as piss. It's almost inevitable that the outcome will be City drop their lawsuit and in return get the most modest of slaps on the wrist for the 115. They will have played a blinder.
All very true.
The EPL are now finding out 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'.
(Another one Ads)
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 10:29:02 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 10:32:06 AM
Post by: itbrvilla on June 06, 2024, 10:37:13 AM
I haven’t seen it posted (might have missed it) but the Daily Heil are saying us, Newcastle and Chelsea are backing Man City.I've read Everton are too.
Edit - Just seen it. Never mind
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 10:46:01 AM
There’s also a difference with clubs like Newcastle - as much as I have contempt for their ownership - at least it appears like they are trying to comply with the rules. Citeh have clearly just attempted to circumvent or entirely disregard them. They appear to standalone in their position and need to be taken apart.
The Saudis didn't buy Newcastle to sell their best players and win nothing. New regulations were bought in after that purchase to stop Newcastle in particular spending billions on new players.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis are currently exploring the market elsewhere.
Post by: Brend'Watkins on June 06, 2024, 10:54:35 AM
The thing that occurs to me is that I can only assume this attempt from Citeh is a reflection of the fact that on the 115 charges they know they are fucked and this is an attempt to move the goal posts. Hopefully it entirely backfires and redoubles the resolve to make an example of them.
That would be naive in the extreme. You can’t win a case of flouting the rules by pointing at another issue as your defence.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 06, 2024, 11:09:44 AM
The PL are as much to blame by allowing this to drag on for years. They should have sorted it at at the first breach, not allow City to hoover up trophies for the next 10 seasons.
They're weak as piss. It's almost inevitable that the outcome will be City drop their lawsuit and in return get the most modest of slaps on the wrist for the 115. They will have played a blinder.
But the breaches weren't apparent were they? It was the Der Bilde exclusives which kicked off the initial investigations. Then the information gathering exercises to see if there was any breaches of Prem rules at those times and not just UEFA ones. Yes it is now 6 years since the last apparent breach occurred, and over two years since the charges were announced, but if the defendants have the money to spend to massively delay a legal process, then they will. For an example outside of football, my Mrs has been a member of a joint action against Asda for almost 10 years now, and it is still ongoing because of delays from Asda (as well as other legal delays).
Post by: Scott Nielsen on June 06, 2024, 11:25:53 AM
Richest non-state backed. Not a sure thing that many will come in who are richer than Comcast.
I don’t think the Atairos investment should be interpreted as Villa being directly backed by Comcast. If Comcast wanted to acquire a business, they would do just that rather than use a PE arm to gain equity foothold. Reviewing the Atairos portfolio of companies suggests they are exactly what they claim to be – a growth-oriented PE firm (a very small one, but still) focusing on long-term strategic investments rather than quick turn-arounds. I see no reason not to take Atairos stated reason for existing at face value.
I am not disputing that Atairos is largely a Comcast vehicle, but it seems reasonable to assume their original $4b funding of Atairos is largely due to them having a huge amount of faith in the founder given his long and successful career at Comcast. I.e. they trust him, they rate him, they believe he’ll make them a lot of money. There must be several other minority investors, though, as currently Comcast’s investment in Atairos is valued at 5.1b and Atairos claim to have approx. $6b in equity capital. Angelakis put in $40m himself.
There is more for Comcast than just making money though. Seemingly, they have first right to purchase any Atairos investments for example and they will be able to offer Atairos portfolio of companies access to partnerships and know-how within the larger Comcast universe that should drive value at both ends.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 11:31:47 AM
The thing that occurs to me is that I can only assume this attempt from Citeh is a reflection of the fact that on the 115 charges they know they are fucked and this is an attempt to move the goal posts. Hopefully it entirely backfires and redoubles the resolve to make an example of them.
That would be naive in the extreme. You can’t win a case of flouting the rules by pointing at another issue as your defence.
Don’t disagree but I think it’s a flex from a regime who aren’t used to not getting their way.
Post by: Bad English on June 06, 2024, 11:39:15 AM
If we do, we're being pathetically short-sighted. We think we'll ever compete financially with the Emiratis and the Saudis? Turkeys and Christmas.
No, but we might want to eventually sell to them.
At which point, as I've said before, I'm out.
I used to love watching, boxing, Formula One, cricket in whites with a red ball.and so on but decades have passed since I have watched those sports because people fucked about with them too much, rendering them meaningless to me. Football is going the same way and I fear that it won't be long before my beloved Villa is/are consigned to the memory stick.
Post by: KevinGage on June 06, 2024, 11:40:35 AM
The caring face of despotic rule.
If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation. As per Don Draper, the Footyskilzz group here and some of the other great minds of our times.
Post by: paul_e on June 06, 2024, 11:41:51 AM
There’s also a difference with clubs like Newcastle - as much as I have contempt for their ownership - at least it appears like they are trying to comply with the rules. Citeh have clearly just attempted to circumvent or entirely disregard them. They appear to standalone in their position and need to be taken apart.
The Saudis didn't buy Newcastle to sell their best players and win nothing. New regulations were bought in after that purchase to stop Newcastle in particular spending billions on new players.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis are currently exploring the market elsewhere.
I think any fear of what Newcastle might do needs to be considered in light of what is happening with Neom. In my opinion everything they're doing with sporting events, etc is to generate legitimacy so they can get sponsopship towards their megacity. Forget everything else the 'mark' he wants to leave as his legacy is HIS city and everything is targeted towards making it happen.
That's not to say they won't spend money but more that I can't see them being happy to sink huge sums into it when the real purpose is that it will generate income for them.
Of course I might be completely wrong and his real aim is to develop a huge beer gut and stand around half naked in his spiritual home on the gallowgate.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 06, 2024, 11:41:53 AM
It would force any club to disclose any documents as quickly as possible.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 06, 2024, 11:44:44 AM
The PL should introduce a rule that you cannot purchase players whilst there is an ongoing dispute/unresolved PRS issues.
It would force any club to disclose any documents as quickly as possible.
That is a good idea
Post by: dicedlam on June 06, 2024, 11:48:00 AM
I also think it would not take too much persuasion to get the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs on board, Along with the top Spanish, Italian and German clubs.
A sort of LIV golf comes to mind.
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 11:59:33 AM
The PL should introduce a rule that you cannot purchase players whilst there is an ongoing dispute/unresolved PRS issues.
It would force any club to disclose any documents as quickly as possible.
That is a good idea
True, but 'innocent before being proven guilty' could put the mockers on that.
If EPL proven wrong in their case, it might open the door to compensation being sought against them by the vindicated club.
Just guessing.
Post by: Brend'Watkins on June 06, 2024, 12:01:26 PM
If Man City don't get there own way with the premier league, you will find that either the Qataris or Saudis will probably fund a 'Super League' that had been discussed previously. Especially, after hearing us, along with Chelsea and Newcastle seem to be on the side of MC.
I also think it would not take too much persuasion to get the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs on board, Along with the top Spanish, Italian and German clubs.
A sort of LIV golf comes to mind.
Given that the purpose of these Saudi/Qatari regimes is to use the PL as a sports washing facility it would be very odd for them to decide to use their new found status without anything actually being washed. Look at us, we're pumping money in, winning everything and now we're going to smash it up.
Post by: jwarry on June 06, 2024, 12:18:56 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 06, 2024, 12:23:52 PM
The PL should introduce a rule that you cannot purchase players whilst there is an ongoing dispute/unresolved PRS issues.
It would force any club to disclose any documents as quickly as possible.
That is a good idea
True, but 'innocent before being proven guilty' could put the mockers on that.
If EPL proven wrong in their case, it might open the door to compensation being sought against them by the vindicated club.
Just guessing.
Not really, there are plenty of cases where a suspension of sorts whilst an investigation is completed is completley normal.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 06, 2024, 12:36:29 PM
After all the finger pointing by the media today I was starting to feel sorry for your genuine City fans as surely they must be feeling the guilt? So popped over to the Bluemoon forum to check they were suitably mortified only to see a seige mentality had taken hold and a genuine feeling they should take the FA to the cleaners! Oh and Matthew Syed is just a racist c***…….
What has the FA got to do with it? (I could also ask why everyone has a boner against the Saudis and Qataris when talking about Man Citeh doing this as well?)
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 06, 2024, 12:37:06 PM
Post by: eamonn on June 06, 2024, 12:40:59 PM
Noel Gallagher refused to join-in the Poznan at Craven Cottage. Right on, brother! Nah, more likely was mortified that what his Kensington neighbour sitting in the neutral end would think of him.
Post by: Bad English on June 06, 2024, 12:42:16 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 06, 2024, 12:43:15 PM
After all the finger pointing by the media today I was starting to feel sorry for your genuine City fans as surely they must be feeling the guilt? So popped over to the Bluemoon forum to check they were suitably mortified only to see a seige mentality had taken hold and a genuine feeling they should take the FA to the cleaners! Oh and Matthew Syed is just a racist c***…….
What has the FA got to do with it? (I could also ask why everyone has a boner against the Saudis and Qataris when talking about Man Citeh doing this as well?)
The 2nd question is easy to answer. If Man City win on this then the theory is that Newcastle would be able to quickly join them as a permanent top 2 and then who else would decide to joni the party, with Qatar being an obvious option. Alternatively, if Man City lose and take heavy punishments could they rally with SA and Qatar to create their own super league (which Saudi are already trying to do) where they invite clubs like Man City to join.
I think both are highly unlikely personally but I can understand why people are worried.
For the first question, these are people that have fully embraced the idea that a club that has won 6 of the last 7 titles are the victims here, understanding the difference between the Premier League and FA would clearly be beyond them.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 06, 2024, 12:47:34 PM
Post by: Baldy on June 06, 2024, 12:48:58 PM
1) If proven guilty, relegate Man City to league 2 for past misdemeanors. The greedy bastards will probably fold.
2) Then introduce new rules to make the EPL more attractive to ultra rich investors. Impose a cap of 150 million a year on transfers allowing for incoming/outgoing players. Forget about FFP and all that confusing stuff.
3) Clubs who hit the 150 million transfer cap (or within 10 million) have to deposit 50 million into a 'holding' account which can be forfeited if any breaches of the rules. Along with a transfer embargo.
The smaller clubs (Brentford, Bournemouth etc) won't like this but they are never going to win the league anyway (apart from 5000/1 Leicester) and it might attract larger investors for them.
I have convinced myself (rightly or wrongly) that Italy and Spain are keeping a very close eye on this whole situation and will be ready to pounce.
Just a thought.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 06, 2024, 01:24:16 PM
@villareport
🚨 It is understood that Villa co-owner, Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak & that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.
@MikeKeegan_DM
#avfc
If thats true, then that is me done completely with football.
I suppose I will have to wait & see how this all develops & where our flag is planted.
Post by: Monty on June 06, 2024, 01:29:43 PM
I have convinced myself (rightly or wrongly) that Italy and Spain are keeping a very close eye on this whole situation and will be ready to pounce.
Nonsensical, as it's completely the other way round - nobody at Juve is 'keeping an eye on' selling themselves to the Saudis, for example. The Saudis might want them, which would be a predatory, nigh-on imperialist takeover (is it always is), but the idea that 'Spain and Italy are ready to pounce' is a little like saying the rabbit is ready to pounce on the hyaena.
Post by: sid1964 on June 06, 2024, 02:35:44 PM
Post by: lovejoy on June 06, 2024, 02:39:31 PM
For me if they let city off I’d be n advocate f burning the whole thing down. Most likely is a minor punishment eg one season in the championship and as you were.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 06, 2024, 02:44:28 PM
@villareport
🚨 It is understood that Villa co-owner, Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak & that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.
@MikeKeegan_DM
#avfc
If thats true, then that is me done completely with football.
I suppose I will have to wait & see how this all develops & where our flag is planted.
why would you be done with football if our owner is making a perfectly legitimate point or shares concerns about spending restrictions in the game. Nowhere does it say we are alogned with Man City on charges that they circuvented the rules to gain an advantage. He's not advocating breaking any rules to allow for expansion of the limits. Why shouldn't NSWE be allowed to spend as they see fit through legitimate sources on their combined sporting interests? Mainly us.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 06, 2024, 02:44:40 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 06, 2024, 02:46:41 PM
So if we cant sell Doug, then who goes before June 30th - we don't want to be starting next season on a minus points total?
No one because we don't need to sell anyone before the end of the month, it's nonsense and always was.
Post by: Gareth on June 06, 2024, 03:14:00 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 06, 2024, 03:16:21 PM
It's natural he's frustrated. Just as we get top 4 we have to sell our best player, same for Newcastle. FFP is fundamentally flawed, it's supposedly there to protect clubs but in reality it's a glass ceiling to protect the few. That's not to say I back Man City, far from it, but we need revised guidelines urgently.@villareport
🚨 It is understood that Villa co-owner, Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak & that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.
@MikeKeegan_DM
#avfc
If thats true, then that is me done completely with football.
I suppose I will have to wait & see how this all develops & where our flag is planted.
Post by: OCD on June 06, 2024, 03:16:24 PM
John Percy saying our proposal to up the spending limit voted down….only 1 other voted with us
That's surprising, it seemed like others were of the same mind and if anything, thought it didn't go far enough. Just have to hope for Palace's proposal to go through now.
Post by: Gareth on June 06, 2024, 03:18:47 PM
Post by: The Edge on June 06, 2024, 03:21:21 PM
Very good article from Mathew Syed in The Times todayThat's a superb article.
Hypocritical City’s only motive was sportswashing but league cheered them in
Panicking powerbrokers now realise the scale of their error – unless these cuckoo owners are expelled from the nest, English football’s whole ecosystem faces collapse
Did they suppose the document would never leak? Did they not count on the brilliant investigative reporters at Times Sport, the best in the business? Did they hope that their perversion of the words of John Stuart Mill, in his wonderful tome On Liberty, would never see the light of day? Or do they no longer care about how they look, knowing that a proportion of Manchester City fans will take to social media to defend the indefensible, turning tribal allegiance into an advanced form of cognitive dissonance?
“The tyranny of the majority” is the breathtaking claim of City. They argue that their freedom to make money has been limited by the Premier League’s rules on sponsorship deals, which forbid related companies (such as Etihad Airways sponsoring a team backed by Abu Dhabi) from offering cash above the commercial rate determined by an independent assessor. They say they are being persecuted, held back by a cartel of legacy clubs that want to monopolise success at their expense.
I am guessing that all fans will see through this comedy gold. City have won the past four Premier League titles and more than 57 per cent of the available domestic trophies over the past seven years. According to my former colleague Tony Evans, this makes them the most dominant side in top-flight history: more dominant than Liverpool in the Seventies and Eighties (41 per cent), more dominant than Manchester United in the Nineties (33 per cent).
Indeed, they are almost as dominant as the emirate of Abu Dhabi, which understands the concept of tyranny quite well having engaged in human rights abuses of a kind that led Amnesty International to question its treatment of immigrant workers and to condemn the arbitrary detention of 26 prisoners of conscience.
But dominance is, as Einstein might have said, a relative term. City want more money than they have at present, more dominance than they enjoy now, more freedom to spend on players (their bench is worth more than the first teams of most of their rivals) so that they can win, what, 40 league titles in a row? That would indeed turn the Premier League from what many regard as a fairly enjoyable competition into a tyranny of the minority.
And this is why the story revealed by my colleague Matt Lawton will cause the scales to fall from the eyes of all but the most biased of observers. The motive of City’s owners is not principally about football, the Premier League or, indeed, Manchester. As many warned from the outset, this was always a scheme of sportswashing, a strategy of furthering the interests of a microstate in the Middle East. It is in effect leveraging the soft power of football, its cultural cachet, to launder its reputation. This is why it is furious about quaint rules on spending limits thwarting the kind of power that, back home, is untrammelled.
And let us be clear about what all this means. An emirate, whose government is autocratic and therefore not subject to the full rule of law, is paying for a squad of eye-wateringly expensive lawyers to pursue a case in British courts that directly violates British interests. For whatever one thinks about what the Premier League has become, there is no doubt that its success has benefited the UK, not just in terms of the estimated contribution to the economy of £8billion in 2021-22, but also through a tax contribution of £4.2billion and thousands of jobs.
Yet what would happen if the spending taps were allowed to be turned full tilt by removing restraints related to “associated partners”? That’s right: what remains of competitive balance would be destroyed, decimating the league’s prestige and appeal.
Remember a few years ago when leaked emails showed that Khaldoon al-Mubarak, the City chairman, “would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next ten years”. Isn’t it funny that such people love the rule of law abroad — seeing it as a vehicle for outspending counterparties on expensive litigation — almost as much as they fear it at home? It’s as though City have ditched any pretence to care about anything except the geopolitical interests of their owners. What’s certain is that the Premier League can no longer cope with multiple City lawsuits and has had to hire outside help. In this case, as in so many others, the rule of law is morphing into something quite different: the rule of lawyers.
In some ways you almost feel like saying to football’s now panicking powerbrokers: it serves you right. These people welcomed Roman Abramovich, then stood wide-eyed while state actors entered the game too. They surely cannot be too surprised that the logical endpoint for this greed and connivance is that the blue-ribband event of English football is now fighting for its survival. When you sup with Mephistopheles, you can’t complain when the old fella returns to claim his side of the bargain.
But the dominant sense today is the shameless hypocrisy of the owners of City. They said that they were investing in City because they cared about regenerating the area. They now say that unless they get their own way, they are likely to stop community funding. They said that the commercial deals were within the rules; they now say that the rules are illegal. They said that competitive balance was important for English football; they now want to destroy it. They said they were happy with the democratic ethos of Premier League decision-making; now they hilariously say it’s oppressive.
I suspect at least some City fans are uncomfortable with this brazenness and may even be belatedly reassessing the true motives of the club’s owners. What’s now clear is that cuckoos have been let into the Premier League nest. Unless they are properly confronted or ejected, they could now threaten the whole ecosystem of English football.
Post by: andyh on June 06, 2024, 03:21:21 PM
They aren’t going to be relegated, so dropping them into League 2 isn’t going to happen.
A points reduction will have minimal impact, unless it’s 20-30 points, which would ultimately make it very difficult to qualify for European competitions.
A fine is utterly meaningless. Even if it were a billion pounds, it wouldn’t help anyone other than the EPL coffers.
The only was to hurt Man City is to take away their voting rights.
Strip them of the ability to influence, shape or guide the game for the next 5 years.
Maybe that would feel like a proper punishment.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 06, 2024, 03:38:08 PM
They have 1 out of 20 votes.
Citeh and thier owners crave to be legitimised
The PL have the ability to find them guilty and kick them out of the League and damage their credibility because this is what is at stake here, the sanctity of the PL as a legitimate competition or the rule by bullying and unfair competition.
Post by: andyh on June 06, 2024, 03:45:32 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 06, 2024, 03:55:57 PM
You REALLY think they will kicked out of the league?? 😂No, but they should be relegated based on precedence.
The other clubs need to realise they have a cuckoo in the nest and we know how that ends.
The PL have proved they are incompetent and useless at governance.
The only thing that would work would be a similar reaction to the ESL.
Post by: SaddVillan on June 06, 2024, 03:58:41 PM
You REALLY think they will kicked out of the league?? 😂No, but they should be relegated based on precedence.
The other clubs need to realise they have a cuckoo in the nest and we know how that ends.
The PL have proved they are incompetent and useless at governance.
The only thing that would work would be a similar reaction to the ESL.
It's a members club.
Abide by the rules as decided by the majority.
If you don't like them FUCK OFF.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 04:00:00 PM
John Percy saying our proposal to up the spending limit voted down….only 1 other voted with us
That’s mad - so does that mean we need to sell?
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 06, 2024, 04:01:54 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 06, 2024, 04:02:42 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on June 06, 2024, 04:03:47 PM
John Percy saying our proposal to up the spending limit voted down….only 1 other voted with us
[/quote
That’s mad - so does that mean we need to sell?
We'll have planned for this as a potential outcome.
Looks like we're going to have to do some financial jiggery-pokery before June 30th to meet FFP/PSR rules
Either a player sale.
Or (and this is my bet) c.£40m hitting the bank account from Trade Nation, Adidas and Betano.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 06, 2024, 04:06:46 PM
Agree, but the PL should have dealt with this months ago.You REALLY think they will kicked out of the league?? 😂No, but they should be relegated based on precedence.
The other clubs need to realise they have a cuckoo in the nest and we know how that ends.
The PL have proved they are incompetent and useless at governance.
The only thing that would work would be a similar reaction to the ESL.
It's a members club.
Abide by the rules as decided by the majority.
If you don't like them FUCK OFF.
Here is the charge sheet, this I the date you have to submit your response.
Adjudication, sanction.
Post by: ozzjim on June 06, 2024, 04:08:33 PM
Post by: Ads on June 06, 2024, 04:13:51 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 06, 2024, 04:15:58 PM
A “one size fits all” approach will always protect those at the top. Some form of tapered approach is needed so small clubs have the chance to become big clubs.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 06, 2024, 04:29:15 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 06, 2024, 04:32:41 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 06, 2024, 04:33:56 PM
@villareport
🚨 It is understood that Villa co-owner, Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak & that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.
@MikeKeegan_DM
#avfc
If thats true, then that is me done completely with football.
I suppose I will have to wait & see how this all develops & where our flag is planted.
why would you be done with football if our owner is making a perfectly legitimate point or shares concerns about spending restrictions in the game. Nowhere does it say we are alogned with Man City on charges that they circuvented the rules to gain an advantage. He's not advocating breaking any rules to allow for expansion of the limits. Why shouldn't NSWE be allowed to spend as they see fit through legitimate sources on their combined sporting interests? Mainly us.
It will all depend on what we say or do going forward.
My connection to football is threadbare at best these days. I despise everything about the modern game.
The only connection I have left is Villa. I love Villa & have done for over forty years, but if we are going to be moving towards the direction of just being another Chelsea or ManC, with what we say or do, then I am done with it all.
Thats not me kicking off & looking for an excuse to exit because we are shit, because we aren't, I just don't want my club becoming anything like those clubs. Even if it is for the reason given called "progress".
But like I said, it will all depend on what we say or do going forward.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 06, 2024, 04:38:31 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 06, 2024, 04:47:13 PM
https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-aston-villa-newcastle-must-sell-before-july/IF this is true, and I take it with a massive pinch of salt, buying clubs will try to exploit the position and drive down the price. It would make sense if we buy from each other at 'market' prices. They're bound to be scrutinised, but could the PL argue if we bought Gallager for £55m (£11m pa over 5 years) and Chelsea bought Duran for £35m (for example)? Both prices seem toppish to me, but not so much that it could be proven so.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 06, 2024, 04:54:40 PM
I hear what you’re saying Pablo. I’m much the same way. I don’t have the time to really watch a lot of games outside of ours. The international tournaments are always fun. But I genuinely think (and I could be wrong and naive) that our owners just want to invest as they see fit within reasonable rules. The Mail suggesting we “sympathized” with Man City I think is bollocks. But I can see where aspects of what they are saying are perfectly fair. What I am sure we didn’t say is “drop everything against them because we want to do the same”.
Maybe the "sympathisers" article is wrong, most probably.
Hopefully.
I do understand the frustrations of the owners regarding spending restrictions. I have made my feelings clear on here in detail about FFP or whatever the fuck its called this week, especially the fact that ManU can spend five times what we can, despite having nearly a billion pounds of debt, (and then their c*** owner begging for a new stadium?!?), etc, I don't know, Im just fed up of having to learn how to be an accountant (joke) just to be able to partially understand an element of modern day football that I fucking despise with a passion, only to read that we might be "sympathisers" with a side that has basically become Harold Shipmans corpse climbing out of its grave & suing the NHS.
Hopefully it's wrong, & it probably is, for the reasons you stated, but if we start heading that way with our actions, not just by some journalist stirring the pot, then that last single thread of love I have left will break & I don't think I will be able to bring it back.
Post by: lovejoy on June 06, 2024, 04:56:10 PM
https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-aston-villa-newcastle-must-sell-before-july/IF this is true, and I take it with a massive pinch of salt, buying clubs will try to exploit the position and drive down the price. It would make sense if we buy from each other at 'market' prices. They're bound to be scrutinised, but could the PL argue if we bought Gallager for £55m (£11m pa over 5 years) and Chelsea bought Duran for £35m (for example)? Both prices seem toppish to me, but not so much that it could be proven so.
Juve got deducted 10 points for that, the old Pjanic/Melo swap.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 06, 2024, 04:59:27 PM
Post by: astonvilla82 on June 06, 2024, 05:08:13 PM
They did, but they he notional fees above are perfectly plausible for both of those players.If Manchester City are going to court for restrictions of trade, put our name down as well, this seems like it to keep the Manchester United and Liverpool etc in a closed shop
Post by: ozzjim on June 06, 2024, 07:24:23 PM
Juve got deducted 10 points for that, the old Pjanic/Melo swap.https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-aston-villa-newcastle-must-sell-before-july/IF this is true, and I take it with a massive pinch of salt, buying clubs will try to exploit the position and drive down the price. It would make sense if we buy from each other at 'market' prices. They're bound to be scrutinised, but could the PL argue if we bought Gallager for £55m (£11m pa over 5 years) and Chelsea bought Duran for £35m (for example)? Both prices seem toppish to me, but not so much that it could be proven so.
Juve got deducted 10 points for that, the old Pjanic/Melo swap.
Wasn't that simply for over inflation of the fees rather than the deal itself?
Post by: Smithy on June 06, 2024, 07:30:40 PM
Juve got deducted 10 points for that, the old Pjanic/Melo swap.https://www.givemesport.com/chelsea-aston-villa-newcastle-must-sell-before-july/IF this is true, and I take it with a massive pinch of salt, buying clubs will try to exploit the position and drive down the price. It would make sense if we buy from each other at 'market' prices. They're bound to be scrutinised, but could the PL argue if we bought Gallager for £55m (£11m pa over 5 years) and Chelsea bought Duran for £35m (for example)? Both prices seem toppish to me, but not so much that it could be proven so.
Juve got deducted 10 points for that, the old Pjanic/Melo swap.
Wasn't that simply for over inflation of the fees rather than the deal itself?
It was. €12m actually swapped hands, but they valued the players at about £80m and £70m respectively. The reality is they were worth about £30m less than that. But Gallagher for £55-60m and Duran for £35-40m would unlikely raise too many eyebrows, as both prices probably feel about right.
I asked a few days ago about something like this, and someone pointed to this deal as an example of how the authorities are on to this type of scam to get around FFP.
Post by: ozzjim on June 06, 2024, 07:46:12 PM
Post by: Smithy on June 06, 2024, 08:59:34 PM
But... It's not a scam if both clubs are actually targeting said players. We could probably produce chapter and verse on scouting Gallagher, and Chelsea were interested in Duran before we bought him in. As such, if we bought Gallagher for £50, they bought Duran for £40, everyone wins
yes, sorry, I meant 'scam' as in valuing Gallagher at £90m and Duran at £70m to help us both in the short term for FFP purposes. Not that the deal couldn't get done with a £20m differential. I would guess the 'true market values' might be in the 55m and 35m range.
Post by: OCD on June 06, 2024, 09:17:03 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 07, 2024, 02:33:56 AM
I was half-joking a few weeks ago when I asked ‘can’t we just sell Bodymoor Heath to ourselves?
Post by: adrenachrome on June 07, 2024, 05:47:42 AM
Talking of Chelsea, it’s interesting that we voted against closing the loophole that clubs can sell tangible assets (hotels, training grounds etc) to record as income on their accounts. Oh, and our side (us, Chelsea, seven others) won enough votes to stop it going through.
I was half-joking a few weeks ago when I asked ‘can’t we just sell Bodymoor Heath to ourselves?
Something of this nature will happen.
Most likely is the naming rights of Villa Park.
Post by: sid1964 on June 07, 2024, 06:16:19 AM
It is such a shame that after so many seasons of being shite, we now have this fantastic opportunity with Champions League football etc.. that we may have to sell 1 of our better players to comply with the rules.
Be prepared for the Spurs bid for Watkins of £20 million!
You can see why Villa tried to get the rules about spending changed yesterday - although it did fail.
Post by: SaddVillan on June 07, 2024, 07:21:53 AM
The league made the proposal at its annual general meeting in Harrogate, North Yorkshire on Thursday but only 11 of the 20 clubs backed it, significantly short of the two-third majority required for a change in English top flight’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
This will allow us to do some "jiggery-pokery" with either Bodymoor Heath, or the new Brookvale Academy site to get around FFP.
Post by: SaddVillan on June 07, 2024, 07:23:02 AM
Talking of Chelsea, it’s interesting that we voted against closing the loophole that clubs can sell tangible assets (hotels, training grounds etc) to record as income on their accounts. Oh, and our side (us, Chelsea, seven others) won enough votes to stop it going through.
I was half-joking a few weeks ago when I asked ‘can’t we just sell Bodymoor Heath to ourselves?
An attempt by the Premier League to close a loophole that lets clubs use one-off profits from the sale of hotels, training grounds or other tangible assets in their financial fair play submissions has failed.
The league made the proposal at its annual general meeting in Harrogate, North Yorkshire on Thursday but only 11 of the 20 clubs backed it, significantly short of the two-third majority required for a change in English top flight’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
This will allow us to do some "jiggery-pokery" with either Bodymoor Heath, or the new Brookvale Academy site to get around FFP.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 07, 2024, 07:38:10 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 07, 2024, 08:42:46 AM
So good it’s worth saying it twice.
You can say that again!
Post by: sid1964 on June 07, 2024, 08:45:57 AM
Post by: ozzjim on June 07, 2024, 08:49:48 AM
Post by: algy on June 07, 2024, 09:03:56 AM
IF we have to sell player(s) by 30th June - how can we afford to buy Barkley for £5m?The article pretty much said that because we asked for a change to the PSR limit, there can't be any other explanation except we're in deep trouble.
Personally I'm relaxed about the whole situation. Maybe we're not spending £60m+ on players this summer, but I don't think we're in dire straits
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 07, 2024, 09:12:35 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 07, 2024, 09:17:10 AM
IF we have to sell player(s) by 30th June - how can we afford to buy Barkley for £5m?The article pretty much said that because we asked for a change to the PSR limit, there can't be any other explanation except we're in deep trouble.
Personally I'm relaxed about the whole situation. Maybe we're not spending £60m+ on players this summer, but I don't think we're in dire straits
I remember back in January, the Athletic were on about the possible Duran sale would cover our FFP needs, but if we didn't sell we were confident of getting the money another way.
So I'm thinking we were only £20-30m or so out. Plus this was before we knew our finishing position and how far we progressed in europe, which will all have helped.
We may even have included an advanced payment from the new deals with Adidas and Betano.
I think wanting the extra £30m allowable loss would have been the case regardless of the FFP position this season as it will allow us to improve the squad next season anyway.
Post by: VillaTim on June 07, 2024, 09:20:23 AM
Post by: Gareth on June 07, 2024, 09:39:14 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 07, 2024, 09:43:39 AM
In all that sensationalist nonsense about clubs having to sell players before the end of June there is absolutely context around how much each club needs to generate…it’s speculation and guesswork at best to fill column inches. So long as the right people at the club who have intimate sightings of the financial position know where we are at I am perfectly comfortable with it.
And haven't we just appointed a finance and tax law guru to work all this out for us and find us the loopholes?
Post by: LeeS on June 07, 2024, 09:46:43 AM
In all that sensationalist nonsense about clubs having to sell players before the end of June there is absolutely context around how much each club needs to generate…it’s speculation and guesswork at best to fill column inches. So long as the right people at the club who have intimate sightings of the financial position know where we are at I am perfectly comfortable with it.
And haven't we just appointed a finance and tax law guru to work all this out for us and find us the loopholes?
I bloody hope so.
Post by: eamonn on June 07, 2024, 10:47:07 AM
Post by: eamonn on June 07, 2024, 10:49:47 AM
But... It's not a scam if both clubs are actually targeting said players. We could probably produce chapter and verse on scouting Gallagher, and Chelsea were interested in Duran before we bought him in. As such, if we bought Gallagher for £50, they bought Duran for £40, everyone wins
You said you wouldn't sell Duran for anything less than £50m ;) To be fair, I'd be more than happy to get £40m for him. His career could go any which way, from ridiculous to sublime.
But I still have a hard time with a £50m valuation of Gallagher given he has one year to go on his contract and Chelsea are under pressure to make big sales this summer.
Post by: Smithy on June 07, 2024, 10:51:35 AM
Does anyone know the PSR implications of Cameron Archer's return? i.e the pure £19m we made on him last summer - is that now eroded by re-signing him at a similar value over a 4 (?) year term, i.e just under £5m per season?
We made a £19m profit on him last year, and we'll make an "approximate" £5m loss per year on him as long as he's our player after buying him back. If he stays for the full length of his contract, it'll probably net out that we make almost nothing on him from FFP purposes, but the deal was done in such a way that we got all the profit this up front this season.
If we sell him again for roughly what we paid Sheff Utd, we won't have any losses on him for FFP, and he'll remain as a net £19m profit to us.
Post by: Smithy on June 07, 2024, 10:53:08 AM
But... It's not a scam if both clubs are actually targeting said players. We could probably produce chapter and verse on scouting Gallagher, and Chelsea were interested in Duran before we bought him in. As such, if we bought Gallagher for £50, they bought Duran for £40, everyone wins
You said you wouldn't sell Duran for anything less than £50m ;) To be fair, I'd be more than happy to get £40m for him. His career could go any which way, from ridiculous to sublime.
But I still have a hard time with a £50m valuation of Gallagher given he has one year to go on his contract and Chelsea are under pressure to make big sales this summer.
I used to think the 1-year left thing changed prices, but I don't think it does. It just removes the clubs option to say "no, we're not selling". Kane went last year for full value despite having 1 year left. I was convinced Spurs would struggle to get £60/70m given he had one year left. The reality is, it made no difference whatsoever to his price.
Post by: frank black on June 07, 2024, 11:01:23 AM
But... It's not a scam if both clubs are actually targeting said players. We could probably produce chapter and verse on scouting Gallagher, and Chelsea were interested in Duran before we bought him in. As such, if we bought Gallagher for £50, they bought Duran for £40, everyone wins
You said you wouldn't sell Duran for anything less than £50m ;) To be fair, I'd be more than happy to get £40m for him. His career could go any which way, from ridiculous to sublime.
But I still have a hard time with a £50m valuation of Gallagher given he has one year to go on his contract and Chelsea are under pressure to make big sales this summer.
I used to think the 1-year left thing changed prices, but I don't think it does. It just removes the clubs option to say "no, we're not selling". Kane went last year for full value despite having 1 year left. I was convinced Spurs would struggle to get £60/70m given he had one year left. The reality is, it made no difference whatsoever to his price.
Teams do occasionally dig in and say they want the full price. It rarely happens with 1 year left though. The ultimate gamble was PSG saying Mbappe wasn’t for sale unless x was paid. Problem was also the fact the player decided he wanted a Bosman. You really have to sell to the highest bidder if you can and if the player only wants 1 team it’s tough negotiations.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 07, 2024, 11:08:48 AM
If Club A offer £20m for a player you value at £40m, but that player wants to go to Club A or he'll see out his contract... you have to take the £20m or nothing.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 07, 2024, 11:16:01 AM
Does anyone know the PSR implications of Cameron Archer's return? i.e the pure £19m we made on him last summer - is that now eroded by re-signing him at a similar value over a 4 (?) year term, i.e just under £5m per season?
Jacob Tamswell, the Villa bloke at The Athletic, reckons we sold for £18.5m, of which Sheff Utd paid £9m up front, and the deal was if they got relegated they’d just send him back and not have to pay the rest. So in effect it was a £9m loan.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 07, 2024, 12:10:50 PM
"Villa are not understood to be the undisclosed club in full support of City’s landmark arbitration hearing next week on spending controls."
"...the Egyptian billionaire is believed to enjoy a warm relationship with City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak..."
"Over the past season, there has been little sign in voting patterns that Villa have been supportive of City’s position."
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 07, 2024, 12:13:57 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/07/aston-villas-billionaire-owner-moves-to-abu-dhabi-fuelling/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/07/aston-villas-billionaire-owner-moves-to-abu-dhabi-fuelling/)
"Villa are not understood to be the undisclosed club in full support of City’s landmark arbitration hearing next week on spending controls."
"...the Egyptian billionaire is believed to enjoy a warm relationship with City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak..."
"Over the past season, there has been little sign in voting patterns that Villa have been supportive of City’s position."
That's really good to hear...
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 07, 2024, 12:20:41 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on June 07, 2024, 12:22:12 PM
Post by: rougegorge on June 07, 2024, 12:26:01 PM
Wouldn't Newcastle be the obvious guess as the club in question?Yes
Post by: Somniloquism on June 07, 2024, 12:31:30 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 07, 2024, 01:06:30 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/07/aston-villas-billionaire-owner-moves-to-abu-dhabi-fuelling/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/07/aston-villas-billionaire-owner-moves-to-abu-dhabi-fuelling/)
"Villa are not understood to be the undisclosed club in full support of City’s landmark arbitration hearing next week on spending controls."
"...the Egyptian billionaire is believed to enjoy a warm relationship with City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak..."
"Over the past season, there has been little sign in voting patterns that Villa have been supportive of City’s position."
Good to hear.
Post by: eamonn on June 07, 2024, 01:14:31 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 07, 2024, 01:18:30 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 07, 2024, 01:19:02 PM
Post by: KevinGage on June 07, 2024, 01:19:34 PM
Both come from prominent families in the neighbourhood. And Nas' construction firm are tied to a lot of the big infastructure projects in Abu Dhabi and the wider Emirates in general.
It might also be pragmatic to keep channels open if - for example - we ever wanted Grealish back on reasonable terms. Or were interested in Alvarez or whoever else.
Doesn't mean we should be rowing in behind the Clown Prince of Darkness on this latest flight of fantasy.
Post by: Ads on June 07, 2024, 01:19:53 PM
Post by: Risso on June 07, 2024, 01:26:27 PM
On a side note Nas has apparently moved to Abu Dhabi.
Very wise with a Labour government incoming...
Post by: AV82EC on June 07, 2024, 01:29:48 PM
On a side note Nas has apparently moved to Abu Dhabi.
Very wise with a Labour government incoming...
Yep, I’d imagine a few of the super rich will be domiciling elsewhere until things start to settle and they see the direction of travel. As long as he keeps investing in the UK specifically the Villa then I couldn’t give a shit where he decides to live, his choice ultimately.
Post by: Stu on June 07, 2024, 01:44:07 PM
Post by: Ads on June 07, 2024, 03:11:34 PM
Post by: OCD on June 07, 2024, 03:20:32 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
I read that fell into last year's accounts and is still under investigation as to whether it's allowable.
Post by: Gareth on June 07, 2024, 04:22:33 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
We have stadium / stand / training ground naming rights that we can hawk about I guess…all fair game I guess :-)
Post by: villadelph on June 07, 2024, 04:34:23 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
This needs to be addressed and changed.. the system is so bent.
Quote
@David_Ornstein Chelsea avoided breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5 million. This was enough to turn a £166.4 million loss in 2022-23 into a £89.9 million deficit for the club. #CFC
Post by: Dogtanian on June 07, 2024, 04:35:23 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
We have stadium / stand / training ground naming rights that we can hawk about I guess…all fair game I guess :-)
I guess it could be like in Hollywood, where people buy the rights to films and books and never do anything with them until they expire. We could sell ourselves naming rights to the stadium for five years and then not use them!
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 07, 2024, 04:45:00 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
This needs to be addressed and changed.. the system is so bent.Quote@David_Ornstein Chelsea avoided breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5 million. This was enough to turn a £166.4 million loss in 2022-23 into a £89.9 million deficit for the club. #CFC
It’s just fucking wrong. Blatantly wrong. And the PL don’t step in and do anything about it. And that includes the clubs. Do they not call this out?
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 07, 2024, 04:52:39 PM
SSN reporting that Chelsea won’t have to sell players to be PSR compliant.
Seems they are backtracking without making a show of it about the "news"...
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/sky-sports-u-turn-after-newcastle-united-everton-aston-villa-transfer-bombshell-claim-4657683 (https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/sky-sports-u-turn-after-newcastle-united-everton-aston-villa-transfer-bombshell-claim-4657683)
Post by: The Edge on June 07, 2024, 04:58:40 PM
As much as that's blatantly wrong surely they'll eventually hit a wall because there's only so many things they can sell.That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
This needs to be addressed and changed.. the system is so bent.Quote@David_Ornstein Chelsea avoided breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5 million. This was enough to turn a £166.4 million loss in 2022-23 into a £89.9 million deficit for the club. #CFC
It’s just fucking wrong. Blatantly wrong. And the PL don’t step in and do anything about it. And that includes the clubs. Do they not call this out?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 07, 2024, 04:58:47 PM
Post by: ozzjim on June 07, 2024, 05:02:45 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 07, 2024, 05:05:23 PM
Post by: andyh on June 07, 2024, 05:05:44 PM
the ‘rules’
the ‘deals to get round the rules’
the posturing
the accounting.
It’s all a fucking sham.
In every which way, no matter how you cut it, it’s a fucking sham.
What ‘probably’ started out with good intentions, as a way to protect clubs from overstretching themselves originally has, AS USUAL, become bloated, ridiculously complex and corrupt.
Just like VAR, something that starts out as simple improvement becomes a vehicle for corruption, cheating, rule breaking and manipulation.
Essentially, the administration of our game is carried out by ****** with too much power and not enough sense.
And the people being administered, are just as corrupt in their desire to protect their own interests.
It’s all a sham, and a fucking shambles.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 07, 2024, 05:12:42 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
This needs to be addressed and changed.. the system is so bent.Quote@David_Ornstein Chelsea avoided breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5 million. This was enough to turn a £166.4 million loss in 2022-23 into a £89.9 million deficit for the club. #CFC
It’s just fucking wrong. Blatantly wrong. And the PL don’t step in and do anything about it. And that includes the clubs. Do they not call this out?
They had a vote to block it at the AGM, but it didn’t pass. We voted against blocking it.
Post by: jwarry on June 07, 2024, 05:14:07 PM
Smooth over UK/Dabi relations over the Citeh case. It’s getting stupidly political now
Post by: Ads on June 07, 2024, 05:15:56 PM
Post by: Stu82 on June 07, 2024, 05:15:59 PM
Is what Chelsea are doing with hotels really any different to us selling VP to ourselves?
Yes, if it is blatantly overpriced, which seems to be the general opinion.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 07, 2024, 05:16:00 PM
Post by: Stu on June 07, 2024, 05:27:55 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
Great. I wonder if it's worth taking the points deduction rather than sell a player integral to the team. As I understand it, Villa would have zero debt if the owners left tomorrow, albeit without the club owning VP, so what exactly are we going to be punished for?
I'm also getting fed up with Liverpool fans online getting all sanctimonious about the need to be sustainable and how they did it under Klopp blah blah as if their global fanbase which sustains their current spending wasn't established by spending shitloads of money in the 70's and the 80's.
Post by: eye digress on June 07, 2024, 05:40:10 PM
Yes, it was in their published accounts for the past financial year (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/19/chelseas-765m-hotel-deals-raise-questions-over-psr-compliance). Here's what they say:That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
I read that fell into last year's accounts and is still under investigation as to whether it's allowable.
Quote from: Chelsea FC Holdings accounts
As disclosed in the Directors' Report, during the year the group commenced a review and restructure of its real estate portfolio resulting in the sale of hotel buildings and car park property to Blueco 22 Properties Limited, a fellow subsidiary of the intermediate parent company, Blueco 22 Limited. In ascertaining the transaction price included within these financial statements, the Directors have obtained market values from two industry leading property valuers, for the purposes of recognising a gain of £76.3m in these financial statements. The Directors agree that these valuations reflect the best estimate when determining the market value of the hotel buildings and car park property.
The consideration for the transaction is subject to Premier League assessment under their associated party transactions rules, as at the date of signing the financial statements, this process is still to be concluded therefore there is a possibility that the Premier League determination of a fair market value, may differ from that recognised within these financial statements. The Directors note that the conclusion of this process may result in a material change to the gain recognised in these financial statements.
So they're making a big play of how they have taken great care to get the right valuation (i.e., paid for blue chip valuers to back them up). But admit that the PL remain the final arbiter with regard to their separate associated party transaction rules.
Post by: Beard82 on June 07, 2024, 05:44:56 PM
Trying to change the status quoThat's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
Great. I wonder if it's worth taking the points deduction rather than sell a player integral to the team. As I understand it, Villa would have zero debt if the owners left tomorrow, albeit without the club owning VP, so what exactly are we going to be punished for?
I'm also getting fed up with Liverpool fans online getting all sanctimonious about the need to be sustainable and how they did it under Klopp blah blah as if their global fanbase which sustains their current spending wasn't established by spending shitloads of money in the 70's and the 80's.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 07, 2024, 05:45:48 PM
Post by: KevinGage on June 07, 2024, 05:46:43 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
Great. I wonder if it's worth taking the points deduction rather than sell a player integral to the team. As I understand it, Villa would have zero debt if the owners left tomorrow, albeit without the club owning VP, so what exactly are we going to be punished for?
I'm also getting fed up with Liverpool fans online getting all sanctimonious about the need to be sustainable and how they did it under Klopp blah blah as if their global fanbase which sustains their current spending wasn't established by spending shitloads of money in the 70's and the 80's.
Redscouse being sanctimonious? No chance.
If's fair when they spent the Littlewoods money in 80s and 90s - outspending champions Man U when Houlier was in charge.
But not fair if other clubs do it.
Post by: wolfman999 on June 07, 2024, 07:42:33 PM
Post by: wolfman999 on June 07, 2024, 07:56:18 PM
That's because they've sold the hotel to their parent group. We can sell BMH, next season the Academy etc. What a system.
Great. I wonder if it's worth taking the points deduction rather than sell a player integral to the team. As I understand it, Villa would have zero debt if the owners left tomorrow, albeit without the club owning VP, so what exactly are we going to be punished for?
I'm also getting fed up with Liverpool fans online getting all sanctimonious about the need to be sustainable and how they did it under Klopp blah blah as if their global fanbase which sustains their current spending wasn't established by spending shitloads of money in the 70's and the 80's.
Well run by wealthy owners, no debt and growing year on year yet we might get clobbered and have to lose players for less than their true value in a fire sale. Then you have the shit-show that is ManUre, nearly a billion in debt, ground falling to bits yet able to carry on spending/wasting on new players.
Post by: Matt C on June 07, 2024, 10:58:32 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 07, 2024, 11:05:34 PM
A Villa Park naming rights deal on June 30th is the inevitable outcome here surely.
The Amazon Apple Adidas Arena @ Villa Park has a nice ring to it.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 08, 2024, 12:09:23 AM
A Villa Park naming rights deal on June 30th is the inevitable outcome here surely.
Worth relative buttons, but it all helps I suppose.
The top 1 in football is Man City at £15m and that’s a fiddle. Athletico Madrid are second with £8.4m, Besiktas are fifth at £6m. We may get about that I suppose.
Surprised small heath aren’t facing questions about going straight in with a bullet at number two in the world, according to the blue coat.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 08, 2024, 12:37:24 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 08, 2024, 12:39:51 AM
Post by: Steve67 on June 08, 2024, 12:52:33 AM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 08, 2024, 12:54:23 AM
Stadium deals are worth far more if it's a new ground with no previously established name, so everyone has to use it. If we change our stadium name, everybody will still call it Villa Park. Stadium deal wouldn't be worth a fat lot.
Tell that to Barcelona :P
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 08, 2024, 12:55:54 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 08, 2024, 12:56:32 AM
Stadium deals are worth far more if it's a new ground with no previously established name, so everyone has to use it. If we change our stadium name, everybody will still call it Villa Park. Stadium deal wouldn't be worth a fat lot.
Tell that to Barcelona :P
Pfft, we have nothing to learn from those kit-stealing twats.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 08, 2024, 12:59:06 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 08, 2024, 01:04:53 AM
The biggest deals tend to be stadium and shirt. Barcelona get a fair chunk from Spotify, even just over a decade ago Arsenal were pulling in £30m from Emirates for stadium and shirt. We were reported to be £8m from Genting at the time.
Only an Arsenal fan on twitter, so not gospel, but he reckoned the naming rights part of their Emirates sponsorship accounts for £4m a year out of the total.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 08, 2024, 01:13:03 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 08, 2024, 03:00:50 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 08, 2024, 05:32:23 AM
Some article in “footballer insider” stating we need to raise £60m from player sales to avoid being in breach. That seems pretty high to me, but I hope it’s not the case.
I can’t see it being that much. Based on our request for the allowable losses being upped by £30m, that could be the figure. If it’s more than that we might have been working on the principles that a £60m increase was even less likely to be voted through, and every little helps.
And on top of all that, I’m not sure how Football Insider would know.
Post by: algy on June 08, 2024, 07:57:47 AM
Adidas Villa Park has a ring to it.Had anyone suggesting asking Wes Edens about getting Fortress Investment Group to sponsor the stadium. We could call it ....
Post by: Richard E on June 08, 2024, 08:47:29 AM
Adidas Villa Park has a ring to it.Had anyone suggesting asking Wes Edens about getting Fortress Investment Group to sponsor the stadium. We could call it ....
Fig Park.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 08, 2024, 09:14:37 AM
Some article in “footballer insider” stating we need to raise £60m from player sales to avoid being in breach. That seems pretty high to me, but I hope it’s not the case.
I can’t see it being that much. Based on our request for the allowable losses being upped by £30m, that could be the figure. If it’s more than that we might have been working on the principles that a £60m increase was even less likely to be voted through, and every little helps.
And on top of all that, I’m not sure how Football Insider would know.
Yes hopefully it’s inaccurate- if it is though that’s a pretty poor place to have gotten ourselves into.
Post by: Chap on June 08, 2024, 09:27:56 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 08, 2024, 09:28:34 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 08, 2024, 09:35:07 AM
Some article in “footballer insider” stating we need to raise £60m from player sales to avoid being in breach. That seems pretty high to me, but I hope it’s not the case.
I can’t see it being that much. Based on our request for the allowable losses being upped by £30m, that could be the figure. If it’s more than that we might have been working on the principles that a £60m increase was even less likely to be voted through, and every little helps.
And on top of all that, I’m not sure how Football Insider would know.
Yes hopefully it’s inaccurate- if it is though that’s a pretty poor place to have gotten ourselves into.
It's Football Insider, accuracy isn't exactly their forte.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 08, 2024, 09:50:47 AM
Post by: Gareth on June 08, 2024, 11:28:31 AM
Some article in “footballer insider” stating we need to raise £60m from player sales to avoid being in breach. That seems pretty high to me, but I hope it’s not the case.
I can’t see it being that much. Based on our request for the allowable losses being upped by £30m, that could be the figure. If it’s more than that we might have been working on the principles that a £60m increase was even less likely to be voted through, and every little helps.
And on top of all that, I’m not sure how Football Insider would know.
Yes hopefully it’s inaccurate- if it is though that’s a pretty poor place to have gotten ourselves into.
It's Football Insider, accuracy isn't exactly their forte.
If they throw enough darts they might hit a bullseye one day
Chief BS merchants are FootyInsider
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 08, 2024, 11:44:54 AM
Adidas Villa Park has a ring to it.Had anyone suggesting asking Wes Edens about getting Fortress Investment Group to sponsor the stadium. We could call it ....
Yes, suggested by Risso, me and someone else. I’m pretty sure I was first.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 08, 2024, 03:08:40 PM
Seems that’s two clubs (Chelsea is the other one) that can be crossed off Sky’s list of skint pricks that HAVE TO SELL PLAYERS BEFORE THE END OF JUNE!!!
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 08, 2024, 03:59:50 PM
I think they looked at an article by Football Insider, or the like, & got a bit excited.
They even hyped up a "mini transfer window" on Sky Sports News...
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 08, 2024, 04:01:34 PM
Sky deleted the articles according to some northern newspaper. I linked it earlier in the thread.
I think they looked at an article by Football Insider, or the like, & got a bit excited.
They even hyped up a "mini transfer window" on Sky Sports News...
Bang out the yellow ties for June 30th.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 08, 2024, 04:16:09 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on June 08, 2024, 04:22:47 PM
I note with interest that Newcastle have bid £15m for that young Burnley keeper, Trafford is it?
Seems that’s two clubs (Chelsea is the other one) that can be crossed off Sky’s list of skint pricks that HAVE TO SELL PLAYERS BEFORE THE END OF JUNE!!!
That is not much more then what Burnley paid, and I'm guessing there might be a sell on fee as well.
Post by: Goldenballs on June 08, 2024, 04:28:05 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 08, 2024, 04:29:54 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 08, 2024, 04:31:58 PM
And that Scottish twat...
Gordon Brown?
Post by: wolfman999 on June 10, 2024, 08:49:40 AM
And that Scottish twat...
Gordon Brown?
My money's on Nicola.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 10, 2024, 09:50:17 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 10, 2024, 02:22:31 PM
Without any real expertise, I kind of think it must mustn’t it?
Post by: lovejoy on June 10, 2024, 02:33:23 PM
So to fix this year we need to sell players on whom we can make a profit eg those who we didnt pay to buy or have been here for ages.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 10, 2024, 02:42:22 PM
Yes it crystallises a loss in the current period (but saves wages and amotisation in future years).
So to fix this year we need to sell players on whom we can make a profit eg those who we didnt pay to buy or have been here for ages.
Thought so. Cheers.
Post by: teamvillage on June 10, 2024, 05:02:38 PM
Yes it crystallises a loss in the current period (but saves wages and amotisation in future years).
So to fix this year we need to sell players on whom we can make a profit eg those who we didnt pay to buy or have been here for ages.
This can mean that it could make sense to loan certain players out rather than sell them, presumably.
Post by: lovejoy on June 10, 2024, 05:50:26 PM
1. The quoted gap is wrong as the guys running thr club would never have got us into this issue where buying clubs act like vultures (Im looking at you Spurs) and try and pick off players on the cheap
2. Sell a raft a academy players/fringe players who have no carrying value in the accounts (Archer etc)
3. Sell a star for a big profit (has to be Luiz as Watkins and Martinez are irreplaceable)
4. Take the 2 point hit like Everton got last year
Im hoping for 1. but there's enough smoke to make me concerned. I don't like 4 as it lacks finesse and is high risk. I'd investigate 2. but maybe we end up doing 3.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 11, 2024, 01:49:20 AM
I dont think loaning players out will make the profit sufficient enough to report the £30-£60m hole. I think there are 4 options:
1. The quoted gap is wrong as the guys running thr club would never have got us into this issue where buying clubs act like vultures (Im looking at you Spurs) and try and pick off players on the cheap
2. Sell a raft a academy players/fringe players who have no carrying value in the accounts (Archer etc)
3. Sell a star for a big profit (has to be Luiz as Watkins and Martinez are irreplaceable)
4. Take the 2 point hit like Everton got last year
Im hoping for 1. but there's enough smoke to make me concerned. I don't like 4 as it lacks finesse and is high risk. I'd investigate 2. but maybe we end up doing 3.
5. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/chelsea-sell-training-ground-to-get-around-financial-problems-report#
Post by: Rigadon on June 11, 2024, 06:48:45 AM
Post by: lovejoy on June 11, 2024, 07:23:55 AM
Post by: ozzjim on June 11, 2024, 08:02:34 AM
Post by: Rigadon on June 11, 2024, 08:03:04 AM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 11, 2024, 08:15:44 AM
Costs of construction and allocated interest rates get capitalised so not shown as a loss for FFP.
Tricky to sponsor a stand that’s not there though. The last dance of the North Stand sponsored by Tango
Post by: algy on June 11, 2024, 08:21:42 AM
Stockport 115 would give it a good shot thoughCosts of construction and allocated interest rates get capitalised so not shown as a loss for FFP.
Tricky to sponsor a stand that’s not there though. The last dance of the North Stand sponsored by Tango
Post by: algy on June 11, 2024, 08:28:03 AM
I dont think loaning players out will make the profit sufficient enough to report the £30-£60m hole. I think there are 4 options:I think 1 is the most likely, that we are OK but maybe can't afford to go all out in the transfer market to solidify our position without selling players. We tried to get £30m added on more so that we could exploit our position than because we specifically need it, but Maguire etc have put 2 and 2 together and got 5, thinking the only reason we asked for it to be increased is because we're screwed.
1. The quoted gap is wrong as the guys running thr club would never have got us into this issue where buying clubs act like vultures (Im looking at you Spurs) and try and pick off players on the cheap
2. Sell a raft a academy players/fringe players who have no carrying value in the accounts (Archer etc)
3. Sell a star for a big profit (has to be Luiz as Watkins and Martinez are irreplaceable)
4. Take the 2 point hit like Everton got last year
Im hoping for 1. but there's enough smoke to make me concerned. I don't like 4 as it lacks finesse and is high risk. I'd investigate 2. but maybe we end up doing 3.
I just can't see us having messed up that badly when generally we seem to be a pretty tightly run ship these days.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 11, 2024, 08:28:40 AM
Post by: DB on June 11, 2024, 08:31:39 AM
Sawaris has given an interview to the Financial Times admitting we are considering legal action about FFP and PSR being anti competitive. Sounds pretty pissed off.
Just read that. Seems like a split between clubs that want freedom to spend and those who want restrict spending.
Post by: cdward on June 11, 2024, 08:35:54 AM
Sawaris has given an interview to the Financial Times admitting we are considering legal action about FFP and PSR being anti competitive. Sounds pretty pissed off.Aston Villa owner calls for overhaul of Premier League spending rules
Billionaire Nassef Sawiris lambasts opaque penalties faced by clubs for breaches and says system cements status quo.
The billionaire owner of Aston Villa has called for an overhaul of the Premier League’s rule book on spending, complaining that the current system had turned English football into a “financial game”.
Nassef Sawiris, Egypt’s richest man, said existing regulations governing what clubs can spend were preventing ambitious owners from challenging the established elite, and the system of penalties for breaking the rules lacked transparency.
Sawiris, who owns Birmingham team Aston Villa alongside US private equity billionaire Wes Edens, also described the Premier League’s so-called profit and sustainability rules as “anti-competitive”, and said he was seeking legal advice on whether to lodge a formal complaint against them.
“Some of the rules have actually resulted in cementing the status quo more than creating upward mobility and fluidity in the sport,” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “The rules do not make sense and are not good for football.”
The Premier League is the most-watched domestic competition in world club football, generating billions of pounds in TV revenue and making it a magnet for private equity firms, sovereign wealth funds and billionaires such as Sawiris.
But the increasing dominance on the pitch of Manchester City has undermined the league’s reputation for competitiveness and led to increased debate over how it is run. The northern English club, owned by Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Mansour, has won four titles in a row, a Premier League record, while also being the subject of 115 allegations of financial rule breaches over a period of several years.
Separately, rival clubs Everton and Nottingham Forest — both slapped with points deductions for exceeding allowed financial losses — have also criticised the rules.
Sawiris said regulations limiting how much a club can lose over a three-year period — brought in to prevent reckless overspending — had instead created some perverse incentives for owners, such as encouraging investment in music venues to boost non-sporting revenue, or prioritising sales of homegrown players to maximise accounting profits.
“Managing a sports team has become more like being a treasurer or a bean counter rather than looking at what your team needs,” he said. “It’s more about creating paper profits, not real profits. It becomes a financial game, not a sporting game.”
Aston Villa finished fourth in the Premier League in the season just finished, qualifying for the lucrative Uefa Champions League. But the club has been losing money in pursuit of on-field success even as it has rapidly increased revenues. In the 2022-23 season, Villa swung to a net loss of roughly £120mn.
Sawiris and Edens first purchased a 55 per cent stake in Villa for £30mn in 2018 rescuing the club from a financial crisis and quickly gaining promotion to the Premier League. They held full control of the club until late last year, when US investor Atairos funded a capital increase that valued Villa at more than £500mn, the FT has reported.
While the Premier League has acknowledged the need to reform its spending regulations, team owners are deeply divided on what should replace the system. Some want rules tightened to prevent the richest clubs from driving up costs; others want to be given more leeway to spend in order to stay competitive on the pitch.
At the league’s annual meeting in Harrogate last week, clubs agreed to try out two new approaches to financial regulation. One limits spending on players to 85 per cent of revenue, while the other links the amount any club can spend to the income of the bottom-ranked team.
Both changes will be tested next season in tandem with existing regulations on profit and sustainability.
Sawiris complained financial regulations that incentivise sales of homegrown talent in effect penalise a club’s loyalty and commitment to their own young players. Selling an academy player — valued at zero in the books because of accounting rules — allows a club to book an immediate profit. However, management can then spend the proceeds on new players but spread the cost over several years of accounts. “This obvious flaw is to the detriment of the fans,” he said.
The league’s spending rules were designed to prevent clubs from going bust by limiting losses to £105mn over three seasons.
Sawiris complained the system had failed to keep up with inflation since being introduced in 2013. And the decision-making process for dictating penalties for breaches was “opaque and . . . seemingly arbitrary”, he said.
The Premier League is facing a legal challenge from City, which claims rules on related-party sponsorships and other transactions are unfair and anti-competitive.
English football is also preparing for the introduction of an independent football regulator, which will be given powers to oversee certain financial aspects of the game.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 11, 2024, 08:38:30 AM
Does this mean they are considering action against UEFA?Sawaris has given an interview to the Financial Times admitting we are considering legal action about FFP and PSR being anti competitive. Sounds pretty pissed off.
Just read that. Seems like a split between clubs that want freedom to spend and those who want restrict spending.
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 08:38:45 AM
Post by: andyh on June 11, 2024, 08:45:39 AM
I am over the moon that our owner wants to invest in the club and take us to the very top.
The fact he wants the rules to be fit for purpose, so he can work within the rules is even better.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2024, 08:56:15 AM
Post by: Risso on June 11, 2024, 09:09:51 AM
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 09:13:50 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 09:13:50 AM
If they completely relax the rules then effectively the Premier League will end up owned by 20 different oil states all fighting over the same players and paying the likes of Ross Barkley a million quid a week.
Yes so the talk of making it more competitive is nonsense.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 11, 2024, 09:23:50 AM
If they completely relax the rules then effectively the Premier League will end up owned by 20 different oil states all fighting over the same players and paying the likes of Ross Barkley a million quid a week.Some sort of spending cap and more even distribution of TV and prize money would seem to be the only real answer
Post by: Drummond on June 11, 2024, 09:30:31 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 11, 2024, 09:32:11 AM
Surely a salary cap is the way to go.
The you'll have the PFA bringing legal action.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 11, 2024, 09:37:16 AM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2024, 09:37:25 AM
Surely a salary cap is the way to go.
The you'll have the PFA bringing legal action.
In the NFL it doesn’t stop stupid contracts being handed out. It just limits total team spending. So a team can’t just load up on all the best players by paying them the most. In the PL if Man City want to pay KDB £400k a week they still can. It just limits how much they can spend on the other 24 players. It would need to be phased in over time to achieve an agreed to salary limit across the next 3 years or so.
Post by: Drummond on June 11, 2024, 09:42:47 AM
Post by: Drummond on June 11, 2024, 09:57:03 AM
Post by: john2710 on June 11, 2024, 09:57:56 AM
The problem we have is that we will struggle to stand still with the restrictions of the current PSR, forcing us to sell at least one player in order to try & stay in the race. In future seasons those clubs in Europe will have to adopt even stricter limitations. I understand that they want the PL to be competitive but City have won the PL 4 times in a row on the basis that they cheated in the years before.
Our request to increase losses will have been designed to stop the need to sell one of our better players more than anything else but the media will see it as an act of desperation.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 11, 2024, 10:43:50 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 11, 2024, 10:46:44 AM
That Mail article yesterday basically said we are right on the limit so whilst we do need to do stuff it is not dramatic. I suspect offloading some fringe players before end of June is more likely. Coutinho being a case in point. Also, the Euros are going on - I doubt players are going to be moving until late this summer anyway.
Being as the loss on his unamortised fee chrystalises, getting rid of him before June 30th would add to our losses.
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 10:48:00 AM
That Mail article yesterday basically said we are right on the limit so whilst we do need to do stuff it is not dramatic. I suspect offloading some fringe players before end of June is more likely. Coutinho being a case in point. Also, the Euros are going on - I doubt players are going to be moving until late this summer anyway.
Being as the loss on his unamortised fee chrystalises, getting rid of him before June 30th would add to our losses.
It would make more sense to loan him for say £3m for his final year and bank it all as profit and let him leave on a free, rather than sell for anything below £5.6m.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 11:13:15 AM
And while I agree with a lot of what Sawiris is saying regarding the unfairness of the current system, I would have the very same feelings that I had against ManC with their ridiculous "tyranny of the majority" bullshit quote when they explained their legal action, if we went the same route.
I personally have nothing but utter contempt towards them for their actions. So to change my view just because it is Villa, no matter how much I want to, well, thats not going to happen.
We signed up to the league & all its rules & regs. We helped set them all up so the league would be a democracy.
We tried to change the FFP/PSR rules recently but got shot down by the democratic process that we helped set up. If we go back & try to change the system using the democratic process available, then fine. We highlight all of our complaints, concerns & issues with the system at that point & if successful, then great.
If not, then we keep trying with different options until we get somewhere, in the way that other clubs did with the subs rule.
But to try to blow up the system because we cant get our own way, no matter how just our concerns may be, simply makes us ManC light & I want fuck all to do with that.
It will hurt, because I have loved Villa for over 40 years through all the shit we have had to endure.
But I fucking despise todays modern game with a passion & if Villa take legal action, then we will merely become part of everything that I despise.
So I will be out...
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 11:15:09 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on June 11, 2024, 11:20:13 AM
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 11:27:43 AM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 11, 2024, 11:28:43 AM
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 11:30:33 AM
I dont want to do it by cheating. Which I think makes a big difference with Man City and why the comparison of "Man City lite" is silly.
Post by: sid1964 on June 11, 2024, 11:38:12 AM
If we can't compete then what is the point of our owners pumping 100's of millions into the club?
Post by: Somniloquism on June 11, 2024, 11:39:08 AM
I'd be against anything that would benefit our rivals over us, so probably. I'm not here for some altruistic, Corinthian hand clap good chaps of football exprience. I'm here for what benefits us, as I would expect the overwhelming majority of football fans are.
I dont want to do it by cheating. Which I think makes a big difference with Man City and why the comparison of "Man City lite" is silly.
However Man City have recently decided to launch legal action against the league due to not having the votes go their way*. We are discussing looking at legal means we can take because votes did not go our way. That is on top of several stories about Sawiris sympathising with City and their owners plight. So I don't think it is "silly" at this moment. I actually think they would now jump at a joining a breakaway superleague if offered at the moment.
*Yes, the common thought is City are doing this to delay the cheating actions further or even to try to stop that action, but it still doesn't distract that the noises we are hearing from an owner is disconcerting.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2024, 11:39:20 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2024, 11:40:39 AM
"...seeking legal advice on whether to lodge a formal complaint against them."
So this is ambiguous.
Post by: AV82EC on June 11, 2024, 11:44:22 AM
Economy has had a deleterious effect on income/costs ever since so Im at a loss as to why the majority of clubs would not want to go to an indexed approach which allows for these things to move with how costs are changing over time.
I’d be intrigued as to how much Nas/Wes have tried to influence others as to the sensible nature of this proposal? Has Nas just got frustrated and lashed out with his legal action threat. I’d suggest he goes back to the clubs who he thinks he can influence and try again.
I also don’t see what this has got to do with C115y at all, they may agree with us but for imv utterly spurious reasons, the sportswashing ******.
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 11:48:12 AM
Post by: ozzjim on June 11, 2024, 11:57:42 AM
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 12:01:45 PM
I don't expect many to agree with me & I respect that is everybody's individual prerogative, but if we take legal action against the Premier League, then that is the cue for me to walk away from football for good.Nail on head. Sawaris has been making some strange noises lately, sympathy for C115y , moving to Abu Dhabi, and now this . If true i would also walk away.
And while I agree with a lot of what Sawiris is saying regarding the unfairness of the current system, I would have the very same feelings that I had against ManC with their ridiculous "tyranny of the majority" bullshit quote when they explained their legal action, if we went the same route.
I personally have nothing but utter contempt towards them for their actions. So to change my view just because it is Villa, no matter how much I want to, well, thats not going to happen.
We signed up to the league & all its rules & regs. We helped set them all up so the league would be a democracy.
We tried to change the FFP/PSR rules recently but got shot down by the democratic process that we helped set up. If we go back & try to change the system using the democratic process available, then fine. We highlight all of our complaints, concerns & issues with the system at that point & if successful, then great.
If not, then we keep trying with different options until we get somewhere, in the way that other clubs did with the subs rule.
But to try to blow up the system because we cant get our own way, no matter how just our concerns may be, simply makes us ManC light & I want fuck all to do with that.
It will hurt, because I have loved Villa for over 40 years through all the shit we have had to endure.
But I fucking despise todays modern game with a passion & if Villa take legal action, then we will merely become part of everything that I despise.
So I will be out...
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 12:04:50 PM
Strange hill to die on, regulations which are unfair, which you agree are unfair and designed with the intention to keep the likes of us from doing what we did last season.
And we tried to change them using the democratic process that we helped setup.
Which is great. I agree 100% with that & really hope the rules get changed when we go back in again with amended options.
And if we fail again, then we keep going back until we are satisfied.
But to take legal action against the democratic process that we helped set up because we didn't get our own way?
Fuck no. Not for me. We either do it right, or we don't do it at all.
What happens when Wolves don't get their next VAR vote through? Or ManC put a vote through that goes against Villas interests & that fails?
Do we just accept that they are entitled to take legal action every time a vote goes against them that they don't like?
They would also be looking after their own interests that benefit their clubs for their future.
What makes us special?
Like I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
I respect the fact that you don't. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion & I understand that it comes purely from a place of love for Aston Villa Football Club.
But I think that there is a bigger picture here other than who has the richest & most litigious owners in the league.
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 12:12:37 PM
Calling the Premier League a democracy is a misnomer. It's more akin to an oligarchy of the Res Publica. It's about a select band looking after narrow interests, for selfish reasons.
I want the custodians of my club, that is special to me in ways I couldn't begin to pen, to fight for our interests. At present, that is in a dry, dull way over finance and getting the rules increased to match inflation for example. They must do what they have to and if the gaming table is rigged, as is agreed, then they have my support to knock it over.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2024, 12:19:26 PM
You need 14 clubs to support it? The top six don't need it and it works in their favour, so there's six votes gone already.
For the rest of the teams, it's effectively raising the entry fee to play in the Premier League, typically to be bankrolled by the owners. If you're getting what you want from the Premier League, why would you vote to pay more to do it?
Post by: paul_e on June 11, 2024, 12:45:17 PM
It would depend on what it is we are seeking. I am all in favour of a rule change that doesn't force us into having to sell our better players, especially to clubs who finished above us, as punishment for finishing 4th. I don't want our stay around this neck of the woods to be as fleeting as Leicester found.
I'm far more bothered by the fact that the current rules encourage teams to sell their academy players which is the one remaining 'romantic' aspect of most sports, the whole local lad done good going on to lead his team to victory and now not only are we seeing the likes of Grealish going to the lure of big wages and easy medals but we're also seeing clubs choosing the fill their bench with the likes of Chambers and Dendoncker instead of giving those spots to Archer/AJ Ramsey because the finances of selling the kids are so much better for us.
The academy farms at clubs like Man City and Chelsea are an abomination that needs to be destroyed.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 12:58:47 PM
We're not taking legal action, we're seeking advice on a complaint to lodge.
Calling the Premier League a democracy is a misnomer. It's more akin to an oligarchy of the Res Publica. It's about a select band looking after narrow interests, for selfish reasons.
I want the custodians of my club, that is special to me in ways I couldn't begin to pen, to fight for our interests. At present, that is in a dry, dull way over finance and getting the rules increased to match inflation for example. They must do what they have to and if the gaming table is rigged, as is agreed, then they have my support to knock it over.
And the fact that we haven't actually taken any legal action is why I haven't walked away yet.
I was just making my feelings known about how I would deal with any potential actions that are hinted at in the article direct from the man himself.
I would have preferred to see a direct quote though, as opposed to how the journalist wrote it.
Time will tell how it all plays out.
As for democracy, in the football sense, it's as good as it's going to get. I get that it's not perfect & the politics of every club are there for them to each look after their own interests, both at the top & the bottom, as is their right, so it's up to us to change their minds by making changes to our proposals, lobbying the clubs, etc, & repeating the process until we ate satisfied.
And I agree, I want the rules changed.
But if kicking the board over means that the board gets kicked over every time others don't get their own way, then no, Im not prepared to support our club going that far...
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 11, 2024, 01:25:14 PM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 11, 2024, 01:36:29 PM
I accept that unlimited money from state-owned clubs isn't the answer, but nobody can convince me we should accept the status quo because it's more morally acceptable either.
If you don't push back then we may as well pack up, go home and let the sky 6 share the trophies as they see fit.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2024, 01:38:04 PM
I'd be against anything that would benefit our rivals over us, so probably. I'm not here for some altruistic, Corinthian hand clap good chaps of football exprience. I'm here for what benefits us, as I would expect the overwhelming majority of football fans are.
I dont want to do it by cheating. Which I think makes a big difference with Man City and why the comparison of "Man City lite" is silly.
I said the same the other day. We’ve got this far and just as we want to take that critical step to securing a more solid spot in the top 4 and CL versus visiting for a year, the rules are forcing us to sell one of our best players. All while Chelsea who finished below us keep on spending, Man U will when they enter the market, and the sides above us are able to as they choose. The rules are doing precisely what Nas is stating. We want to do things legally. This whole sympathize with Man City suggestion was bollocks. He wants to continue to invest in the club without bending rules or compromising what he already has just to bridge the gap.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 01:46:44 PM
It would depend on what it is we are seeking. I am all in favour of a rule change that doesn't force us into having to sell our better players, especially to clubs who finished above us, as punishment for finishing 4th. I don't want our stay around this neck of the woods to be as fleeting as Leicester found.
I'm far more bothered by the fact that the current rules encourage teams to sell their academy players which is the one remaining 'romantic' aspect of most sports, the whole local lad done good going on to lead his team to victory and now not only are we seeing the likes of Grealish going to the lure of big wages and easy medals but we're also seeing clubs choosing the fill their bench with the likes of Chambers and Dendoncker instead of giving those spots to Archer/AJ Ramsey because the finances of selling the kids are so much better for us.
The academy farms at clubs like Man City and Chelsea are an abomination that needs to be destroyed.
Agreed on this too.
And tbf, we have joined this abomination too with recent sales. I fully expect Iroegbunam to be sold soon too.
I don't know how we get round this though, other than maybe having independent valuations being placed on youth players every 6-12 months?
I admit, that I don't know enough about business finance to be able to know how this could be fixed & the idea above is probably utter garbage, but it was the first thing that popped into my head...
For years in fact decades we were seen as nice, lovable, come to Villa Park and they will give you a game but you will come out easy victors, accepting of stupid tapping up charges Aston Villa. Now we aren't and people don't like that either. If we are getting under people's noses I am all for it as yes we signed up to the rules. Time has evolved, they are clearly now not fit for what they were designed to do so need looking at. It is not a hard concept.
It's not about being seen as anything. I couldn't give a flying fuck what other fans think of us.
And I want us to be difficult, physical, everything & anything accepted within the rules of the game on the pitch. I want other teams to hate playing us because they aren't given an easy ride.
And that hasn't changed since I was a kid watching Villa. But being seen as "loveable" & easy on the pitch is a whole different animal to being litigious because the democratic option we took failed this time.
And some of the rules aren't fit for purpose, I agree. Including the one Sawiris is complaining about.
But I don't want Villa to kick the board over just because the first crack we had at changing those rules failed. The fact that we brought up the vote in the first place shows that it is "being looked at".
We just need to keep bringing it up, lobbying, highlighting it in the media, etc, until we are satisfied.
These are the views I would have if any other club did what one of our owners are hinting at. I don't see why they have to change just because its Villa...
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 01:55:33 PM
I don't see why owners who have ploughed multi millions into their clubs should sit and meekly accept rules that were transparently created to create a glass ceiling to hold their clubs back. A system that makes teams like us and Newcastle sell our best players just as we get to the point of challenging the elite, despite having no debt.
I accept that unlimited money from state-owned clubs isn't the answer, but nobody can convince me we should accept the status quo because it's more morally acceptable either.
If you don't push back then we may as well pack up, go home and let the sky 6 share the trophies as they see fit.
I have never said "don't push back".
But we do it in the right way. We keep pushing back via the democratic process available, we amend our changes, lobby clubs, go the press route, etc, etc. And then we keep doing that until we are satisfied, just like the clubs who wanted the extra subs did a couple of years ago.
Otherwise, if we kick the board over because our vote failed, whats to stop other clubs kicking the board over every time their vote fails?
It will become utter chaos with lawsuit after lawsuit.
Just look at the ManC one. How long is it after theirs that we have hinted at one via the press?
We will open up a pandoras box of lawsuits.
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 02:43:32 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 02:48:07 PM
But it's not a democracy and it's not a fair process. If you are a fan of democracy, then why object to litigation (not that anybody has issued proceedings) for a judicial resolution?
For the reasons that I have already stated.
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 02:53:31 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 11, 2024, 02:58:01 PM
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 02:59:01 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 03:04:20 PM
My post raises the inherent contradictions of your position, which I don't think you've addressed. You don't have to, I just can't reconcile it.
I just don't want to have to type out the same shit I have typed out several times already.
I just think there is already a process in place to deal with our concerns & going the legal route (potentially hinted at but not done yet, thankfully) is moving out of the democratic process that we agreed to & signed up for, which will open up a pandoras box of litigation.
I have read all sorts of negative comments on this forum towards ManC & their litigation, including wanting expulsion from the league.
And admittedly, similar views from myself as well.
So I don't think that I am being particularly contradictory...
But like I said, I understand that not everyone will agree & understand. And I fully respect theirs & your rights to disagree.
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 11, 2024, 03:06:18 PM
We ended up having 3 of them and through that time we have never been able to flex our financial muscle even when we wanted to - whilst other have been allowed to with impunity.
Surely if you are able to prove you can afford it then you should be able to spend within your means. If all of the mega rich owners signed a pre nup that agrees to pay a set amount if they get bored or their actions ruin a club then what would be wrong with that?
The Redfilth are technically a Billion $'s in debt to financiers yet are allowed to spunk away millions each year on the next big shiny thing.
The doors were shut a while ago to anyone but the scum 6 - however i do hope that we are a solution and do not become another part of the problem.
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 03:06:19 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 11, 2024, 03:07:16 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 11, 2024, 03:30:14 PM
I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.
I think the difference is that you don't think that each club having a single vote when proposals are brought to the floor in the Premier League club meetings isn't democratic.
I do...
Granted, there are the individual politics of each club looking after their own interests, Villa included, & I agree, overall, I want the rules to change because they are unfair to some clubs, again, Villa included, but if 20 clubs have 20 votes & three quarters are needed to make changes, then that is a democratic process between the clubs. Rule of the majority. Dictionary definition of democracy.
And I may be being a little too romantic, but that is part of the problem with modern day football. All those wonderful notions of footballing romanticism are being eroded away by greed & self interest. I don't want Villa to be involved with that.
Anyway, I am tired now. I have said all I can say on the matter & some people think I am being too wordy, so I think I am going to call it a day...
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2024, 03:37:16 PM
Post by: garyellis on June 11, 2024, 03:38:12 PM
I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.We have followed process and probably had already worked out for reasons stated on here that was never going to work. So we move to option 2. The current rules are not achieving what they set out to do, they are creating a comfort blanket for some and a monopoly for others . It needs to change and you use the tools at your disposal to make that change. I am right behind our owners!
Post by: paul_e on June 11, 2024, 03:46:29 PM
My post raises the inherent contradictions of your position, which I don't think you've addressed. You don't have to, I just can't reconcile it.
I just don't want to have to type out the same shit I have typed out several times already.
I just think there is already a process in place to deal with our concerns & going the legal route (potentially hinted at but not done yet, thankfully) is moving out of the democratic process that we agreed to & signed up for, which will open up a pandoras box of litigation.
I have read all sorts of negative comments on this forum towards ManC & their litigation, including wanting expulsion from the league.
And admittedly, similar views from myself as well.
So I don't think that I am being particularly contradictory...
But like I said, I understand that not everyone will agree & understand. And I fully respect theirs & your rights to disagree.
The small, but very significant difference here is that we're complaining about the rules because we don't want to break them but they are making it difficult for us to plan for the Champions League. Man City broke the rules and are trying to find legal loopholes to get away with it.
Post by: paul_e on June 11, 2024, 03:49:58 PM
I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.
I think the difference is that you don't think that each club having a single vote when proposals are brought to the floor in the Premier League club meetings isn't democratic.
I do...
Granted, there are the individual politics of each club looking after their own interests, Villa included, & I agree, overall, I want the rules to change because they are unfair to some clubs, again, Villa included, but if 20 clubs have 20 votes & three quarters are needed to make changes, then that is a democratic process between the clubs. Rule of the majority. Dictionary definition of democracy.
And I may be being a little too romantic, but that is part of the problem with modern day football. All those wonderful notions of footballing romanticism are being eroded away by greed & self interest. I don't want Villa to be involved with that.
Anyway, I am tired now. I have said all I can say on the matter & some people think I am being too wordy, so I think I am going to call it a day...
Allowing clubs to vote for or against rules that dictate things like transfers is pretty obviously subject to greed and self-interest so that particular line feels like it should be aimed at the existence of the premier league more than anything.
Post by: Stu on June 11, 2024, 06:21:32 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 11, 2024, 07:06:56 PM
https://archive.ph/nhZ6f
Post by: wince on June 11, 2024, 07:49:22 PM
Post by: Stu on June 11, 2024, 08:53:51 PM
Here you go mate...
https://archive.ph/nhZ6f
Cheers!
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 08:57:21 PM
Fuck modern football. Makes me sick we have to sell family silver to even survive let alone compete.The monster is devouring itself .
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 09:15:44 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 09:37:06 PM
Obviously I appreciate there’s still a degree of speculation to this, but does anyone have a view as to how much this deal might alleviate our PSR issues? Based on the assumed figures.Hopefully this will solve it short term plus the likes of Coutinho Chambers Dendonker Hause etc going will help.
What we don't know is how bad the next set of accounts will be .
Post by: paul_e on June 11, 2024, 09:42:24 PM
Obviously I appreciate there’s still a degree of speculation to this, but does anyone have a view as to how much this deal might alleviate our PSR issues? Based on the assumed figures.
Lets make a few assumptions:
1. Iling-Junior and McKinnie both sign on 4-5year contracts.
2. Luiz is valude at £70m in the deal.
Based on that we 'gain' £70m in the books and pay £10-12.5m on the incomings, giving us a book profit of £57.5-60m less signing fees and any difference in wages.
If we also assume that the 'need to sell' stuff is bollocks, as I expect it to be, it means we'd have a huge amount of overhead for more spending.
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 09:45:22 PM
I don't think it was bollocks. We told Juve to jog on - tried to increase acceptable loses and it failed - and now were accepting Juves offer. I think thats all linkedObviously I appreciate there’s still a degree of speculation to this, but does anyone have a view as to how much this deal might alleviate our PSR issues? Based on the assumed figures.
Lets make a few assumptions:
1. Iling-Junior and McKinnie both sign on 4-5year contracts.
2. Luiz is valude at £70m in the deal.
Based on that we 'gain' £70m in the books and pay £10-12.5m on the incomings, giving us a book profit of £57.5-60m less signing fees and any difference in wages.
If we also assume that the 'need to sell' stuff is bollocks, as I expect it to be, it means we'd have a huge amount of overhead for more spending.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 09:48:21 PM
I don't think it was bollocks. We told Juve to jog on - tried to increase acceptable loses and it failed - and now were accepting Juves offer. I think thats all linkedObviously I appreciate there’s still a degree of speculation to this, but does anyone have a view as to how much this deal might alleviate our PSR issues? Based on the assumed figures.
Lets make a few assumptions:
1. Iling-Junior and McKinnie both sign on 4-5year contracts.
2. Luiz is valude at £70m in the deal.
Based on that we 'gain' £70m in the books and pay £10-12.5m on the incomings, giving us a book profit of £57.5-60m less signing fees and any difference in wages.
If we also assume that the 'need to sell' stuff is bollocks, as I expect it to be, it means we'd have a huge amount of overhead for more spending.
After adding Illing-Junior. Thanks both.
Post by: paul_e on June 11, 2024, 09:49:53 PM
I don't think it was bollocks. We told Juve to jog on - tried to increase acceptable loses and it failed - and now were accepting Juves offer. I think thats all linkedObviously I appreciate there’s still a degree of speculation to this, but does anyone have a view as to how much this deal might alleviate our PSR issues? Based on the assumed figures.
Lets make a few assumptions:
1. Iling-Junior and McKinnie both sign on 4-5year contracts.
2. Luiz is valude at £70m in the deal.
Based on that we 'gain' £70m in the books and pay £10-12.5m on the incomings, giving us a book profit of £57.5-60m less signing fees and any difference in wages.
If we also assume that the 'need to sell' stuff is bollocks, as I expect it to be, it means we'd have a huge amount of overhead for more spending.
There's plenty of reasons why we'd have takent he offer in the end before you get to the 'desperately needed to sell by the end of the month' line that has been passed around in the press. I wouldn't be massively surprised if the main thing was the vote on increasing the cap going against us so we decided this was the simplest way to get breathing room to bring in a few other new faces.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Iling-Junior was on our list anyway, he fits the profile of the sort of signings I expect Monchi to be mostly after this summer.
McKinnie is the outlier for me but at a guess I think he's been accepted because he fits the bill of adding a bit more physicality into what is a pretty light-weight midfield when Kamara is missing.
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 09:54:31 PM
I think we would have ended up selling Luiz - but I don't think we would have done it in this way - or at least would have held out to see if there were other offers. Both are coming into the last year of there contracts - I think the fact we can "game" FFP has meant it happening now.
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 10:00:54 PM
I would be slightly disappointed as I think he will be a 100m player at some point soon. Feels like the legendary manager's "clear out" of players that are "surplus to requirements"
Hoping it is to boost the "War Chest" for a "Big Summer".
Which probably ends up with us talking up the returning Zanilio on the 31st of August.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 10:03:31 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 11, 2024, 10:03:48 PM
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 10:06:38 PM
Is there any reliable sources on Duran? If he goes I’ll be disappointed but £40-50m is a good deal for us at this time.Fabrizio just Tweeted it
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 10:08:23 PM
Looks like Duran is next out.Very comfortable with Duran going. Beyond the odd flash I don't think he's cut out for this level. Good luck to him though.
I would be slightly disappointed as I think he will be a 100m player at some point soon. Feels like the legendary manager's "clear out" of players that are "surplus to requirements"
Hoping it is to boost the "War Chest" for a "Big Summer".
Which probably ends up with us talking up the returning Zanilio on the 31st of August.
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 10:08:34 PM
We've been linked with both players before, Doug has been happy to leave before. It could be down to the players rather than just always PSR.I think it suits all parties to an acceptable degree. I think only Juve will be really happy, because they have an 100m for 20m plus two players that could leave for free next summer.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 11, 2024, 10:10:25 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 10:10:32 PM
Is there any reliable sources on Duran? If he goes I’ll be disappointed but £40-50m is a good deal for us at this time.Fabrizio just Tweeted it
Did he? I can only see a tweet about him being on the shortlist a few hours ago.
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 10:12:38 PM
Sorry thats what I was referring too. Im working on the assumption that means the interest is pretty serious, combined with the noise from the other accounts.Is there any reliable sources on Duran? If he goes I’ll be disappointed but £40-50m is a good deal for us at this time.Fabrizio just Tweeted it
Did he? I can only see a tweet about him being on the shortlist a few hours ago.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2024, 10:13:12 PM
I reckon in a few years we will regret Duran going more than we do Luiz if they both leave this window.
Maybe. But that also depends on the player. He’s going to go there expecting playing time. If he doesn’t get it he’ll want out in a couple of seasons. Chelsea transfer strategy is a revolving door so if doesn’t make a quick impact they’ll just buy someone else.
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 10:14:04 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 10:16:10 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2024, 10:17:24 PM
Is there any reliable sources on Duran? If he goes I’ll be disappointed but £40-50m is a good deal for us at this time.Fabrizio just Tweeted it
Did he? I can only see a tweet about him being on the shortlist a few hours ago.
It’s being reported by reputable Colombian sports journalist Guillermo Arango. Romano will rob him of the goal and tap it in at the back post in a day or two
Post by: Beard82 on June 11, 2024, 10:17:54 PM
Also from John's perspective - there both mid-table london clubs with Twats for chairman so he could just go where pays the most.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2024, 10:19:44 PM
I think Emery would probably prefer someone more coachable who will more consistently stick to the plan.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2024, 10:25:16 PM
Is there any reliable sources on Duran? If he goes I’ll be disappointed but £40-50m is a good deal for us at this time.Fabrizio just Tweeted it
Did he? I can only see a tweet about him being on the shortlist a few hours ago.
It’s being reported by reputable Colombian sports journalist Guillermo Arango. Romano will rob him of the goal and tap it in at the back post in a day or two
Thanks.
Post by: Legion on June 11, 2024, 10:28:38 PM
Post by: eamonn on June 11, 2024, 10:30:58 PM
Post by: Legion on June 11, 2024, 10:33:15 PM
Post by: Legion on June 11, 2024, 11:07:59 PM
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on June 11, 2024, 11:24:11 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 11, 2024, 11:30:12 PM
Post by: jwarry on June 12, 2024, 07:27:10 AM
PSR rules 'not good' for football - Villa co-owner - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cp33r2vjm2lo
The Times are reporting the FT article this morning but are adding that Nas is considering a legal challenge on the PL
Post by: Paul.S on June 12, 2024, 10:01:22 AM
PSR rules 'not good' for football - Villa co-owner - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cp33r2vjm2lo
The Times are reporting the FT article this morning but are adding that Nas is considering a legal challenge on the PL
I’m surprised this hasn’t been challenged earlier. Not that I agree with owners being able to saddle any club with massive debt, surely there has to be a better way? I think it’s been suggested quite a few times but if an owner wants to spend over FFP limits then they have to secure it with a bond of some sort.
I’ve no idea if that would work but I don’t think the current rules will be with us for too many years to come.
It’s clear our owners want to heavily invest in us and are frustrated at not being able to. I fear that the current rules will benefit the current ESL 6 more than anyone else.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 12, 2024, 11:33:39 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 12, 2024, 11:41:41 AM
Share the wealth, like in the NFL. Let Ipswich have the same money to spend as Man United. Have a genuinely competitive and unpredictable league. Why should Man Utd and Liverpool be among the best teams for the rest of time because they acquired a lot of glory-hunting twats in the 80s and 90s?
But the problem remains how you limit that?
As in, it's okay saying Ipswich can spend the same amount as Man City... but, they literally don't have the money if Man City can spend what they want.
Now that state-ownership is a thing, you have to free up clubs to spend, but you still have to prevent them leveraging the power of the state's finances.
Post by: Ads on June 12, 2024, 11:42:42 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 12, 2024, 11:42:54 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 12, 2024, 11:46:44 AM
Post by: Brend'Watkins on June 12, 2024, 11:47:24 AM
Post by: Ads on June 12, 2024, 11:54:47 AM
Post by: chrisw1 on June 12, 2024, 11:57:45 AM
Share the wealth, like in the NFL. Let Ipswich have the same money to spend as Man United. Have a genuinely competitive and unpredictable league. Why should Man Utd and Liverpool be among the best teams for the rest of time because they acquired a lot of glory-hunting twats in the 80s and 90s?I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but I do think TV money should be split absolutely equally and there should be much less difference in league placement prize money. Also, no coefficient euro payments.
The horse has bolted with the expansion of the Champions League, but that should have been stopped too.
A spending cap would be ideal, but 20 clubs will have different views on what that should be and it would hand the initiative to any leagues without such caps, so it can't really work unless it's global, or at least euro wide.
Post by: London Villan on June 12, 2024, 07:14:36 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 12, 2024, 07:24:03 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 12, 2024, 07:25:41 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 13, 2024, 12:45:16 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 13, 2024, 12:49:48 PM
Lucky there's only two of them. I'd still be kicking those twats out of the league for the match-fixing they never got punished for. Even Juventus got relegated. Imagine being part of a league that is more corrupt than Serie A. Fucking Hell.
I missed this. What/when?
Post by: Dogtanian on June 13, 2024, 12:52:47 PM
I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 13, 2024, 12:54:03 PM
Lucky there's only two of them. I'd still be kicking those twats out of the league for the match-fixing they never got punished for. Even Juventus got relegated. Imagine being part of a league that is more corrupt than Serie A. Fucking Hell.
I missed this. What/when?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915_British_football_match-fixing_scandal
It's never too late for justice to be done.
Kick Arsenal out of the league until they've been promoted properly, too.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 13, 2024, 12:54:23 PM
I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
The company I work with used to attend overnight team building sessions at St George’s Park. Maybe Villa are considering similar during the summer months for some extra income.
Emery can help with the PowerPoint presentations.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 13, 2024, 12:55:27 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 17, 2024, 09:14:02 AM
https://x.com/espenstrand/status/1802612814793592945?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Post by: Mr Diggles on June 17, 2024, 09:25:52 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 17, 2024, 09:36:40 AM
In that analysis, do you know why the 'profit required to meet PSR' value is seemingly smaller than the 'surplus/profit on player sales' value?
That figure (£62.7m) is in brackets, so that’s a loss.
That means we’ve got to find £101m, of which we’ve already achieved £43m, leaving £58m to find.
Edit: not sure how helpful that is!
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 17, 2024, 10:16:44 AM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 17, 2024, 11:04:40 AM
Post by: OCD on June 17, 2024, 11:18:30 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 17, 2024, 11:21:35 AM
I thought the Swiss Ramble had us at £93m loss over 3 years.
Yes, so did I.
Post by: VillaTim on June 17, 2024, 11:26:06 AM
The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Post by: Lsvilla on June 17, 2024, 11:35:38 AM
The British Masters is there at the end of August.The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Post by: paul_e on June 17, 2024, 11:36:30 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on June 17, 2024, 11:50:16 AM
The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Lot of building going on there at the moment.
Post by: VillaTim on June 17, 2024, 01:29:58 PM
yeah thats about as good as it gets for them .The British Masters is there at the end of August.The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Post by: Drummond on June 17, 2024, 01:52:42 PM
yeah thats about as good as it gets for them .The British Masters is there at the end of August.The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
The first major event in the British golfing season. So not long gone at all.
Post by: VillaTim on June 17, 2024, 02:22:55 PM
Compared to where it was (4 Ryder Cups) its long gone .yeah thats about as good as it gets for them .The British Masters is there at the end of August.The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
The first major event in the British golfing season. So not long gone at all.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 17, 2024, 04:37:22 PM
Edited to the official announcement:
https://x.com/avfcofficial/status/1802717997179498505?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Post by: garyellis on June 19, 2024, 07:07:26 PM
I am sure we will wheel and deal but I do not believe we are desperate and cornered.
I think Vinnie's take on things seem more plausible regarding Luiz.
Post by: tomd2103 on June 21, 2024, 01:17:04 AM
The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Lot of building going on there at the moment.
Is the Bel Air re-opening?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 21, 2024, 01:20:52 AM
Post by: algy on June 21, 2024, 05:42:06 AM
Post by: Villa Lew on June 21, 2024, 10:16:01 AM
I was there in 1985, when we beat USA in the Ryder Cup for the first time in 28 years, brilliant day.yeah thats about as good as it gets for them .The British Masters is there at the end of August.The days of The Belfry hosting major events are long gone.I see we are building a 40 room hotel at Bodymoor Heath for players and staff as well as new academy and woman’s team facilities. I hope that we sell the new hotel to two mysterious businessmen; Wesley Sawiris and Nas Edens for £10 billion.
I was wondering about this and the reasoning behind it. Will they sell rooms to non-staff for revenue? Or will it just reduce our costs?
I can imagine being so close to the Belfry they may be able to rent rooms out at high prices during events?
Post by: purpletrousers on June 21, 2024, 10:48:53 AM
Romano
🟣🔵 Aston Villa are advancing in talks to sign Lewis Dobbin from Everton, as expected.
Meanwhile, Everton have signed Aston Villa midfielder Tim Iroegbunam for fee around £9m as reported - all set to be sealed.
So beyond
•the player plus cash deal,
and trying not to strengthen a rival by selling your best abroad, we now have the strategic
•buying each other’s players
to bring income in now, spread the spending over the next years.
Along with the profitability of
•selling ‘one of our own’ (hopefully avoiding that this window),
•selling the ground to yourself (us and others, or hotels which I think have kept Chelsea in the black of late)
As much as it risked sounding like it supported a bullying Man City playing the victim, this criticism by Nassef Sawiris of the utter nonsense of competitive bookkeeping as a sport is starting to make sense.
I do have a sense we know what we are doing at least, so more credit to the owners/structure/staff.
Post by: PeterWithe on June 21, 2024, 10:49:52 AM
The Bel-Air was knocked down this year as part of the building works currently going on.
Post by: Ads on June 21, 2024, 08:13:05 PM
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£11m up)
Duran - £40m (£43m up)
Gives us quite a bit more wiggle room come 1st July onwards.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 21, 2024, 08:18:43 PM
Post by: jwarry on June 22, 2024, 08:50:55 AM
Tim - £9m (£49m required)
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£11m up)
Duran - £40m (£43m up)
Gives us quite a bit more wiggle room come 1st July onwards.
We are all guessing but hopefully that comes off and we see off the 23-24 accounts - and that’s not accounting anything we might get for the likes of Chambers, Hause, Coutinho, Digne and Sanson (just noticed he left permanently to Nice on 15 May - I missed that)
Post by: OCD on June 22, 2024, 12:05:32 PM
Tim - £9m (£49m required)
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£11m up)
Duran - £40m (£43m up)
Gives us quite a bit more wiggle room come 1st July onwards.
Less £7.5m (£37.5m/5) for Maatsen.
£35.5m up.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 22, 2024, 12:11:25 PM
Post by: Drummond on June 22, 2024, 12:13:21 PM
Tim - £9m (£49m required)
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£11m up)
Duran - £40m (£43m up)
Gives us quite a bit more wiggle room come 1st July onwards.
Less £7.5m (£37.5m/5) for Maatsen.
£35.5m up.
Less the costs of the incoming from Juventus too.
Also worth noting is that the contract amortisation rules don't change until 1st July I think. That would mean any signings now could be stretched out...
Post by: OCD on June 22, 2024, 12:25:45 PM
Post by: Ads on June 22, 2024, 12:42:04 PM
Tim - £9m (£49m required for compliance pre- 30.06)
Kellyman - £19m (£20m required)
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£40m up)
Duran - £40m (£72m up)
Maatsen- £37m (£64m up)
Iling and Enzo (value of ~£30m combined I estimate in 5 year deals - £58m up)
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 22, 2024, 12:43:42 PM
Post by: Ads on June 22, 2024, 12:44:37 PM
Duran isn't going for £40M if Chelsea have walked away. And their potential signing of Kellyman suggests that they have...
Does it? They want a striker to start. Kellyman will be farmed out.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 22, 2024, 12:47:37 PM
They don't need Kellyman, but preferred to discuss a deal for him rather than complete the deal for Duran.
I may be wrong though. Hopefully...
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 22, 2024, 12:51:29 PM
I would think so.
They don't need Kellyman, but preferred to discuss a deal for him rather than complete the deal for Duran.
I may be wrong though. Hopefully...
That’s my guess too.
Post by: Drummond on June 22, 2024, 02:01:22 PM
I would think so.
They don't need Kellyman, but preferred to discuss a deal for him rather than complete the deal for Duran.
I may be wrong though. Hopefully...
You've no idea what they preferred, what discussions have been happening or anything, the same as the rest of us.
No point worrying about it, with the people in charge of the club, and their record to date, I think they will be doing things as well as they can.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 22, 2024, 02:01:46 PM
The talent is there in spades, and unlike Donk, Carlos and (for me) Cash, it’s good if he goes, and good if he stays too, as long as he knuckles down
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 22, 2024, 02:11:41 PM
I would think so.
They don't need Kellyman, but preferred to discuss a deal for him rather than complete the deal for Duran.
I may be wrong though. Hopefully...
You've no idea what they preferred, what discussions have been happening or anything, the same as the rest of us.
No point worrying about it, with the people in charge of the club, and their record to date, I think they will be doing things as well as they can.
It is my opinion that this has happened based upon the reporting.
I hinted at that with the words "suggest" & "I think".
Post by: jwarry on June 22, 2024, 02:23:32 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13557943/Aston-Villa-Southampton-lead-race-sign-Swindon-starlet-Harley-Hunt-Robins-slap-500-000-price-tag-16-year-old-defender.html
Post by: Villan82 on June 22, 2024, 02:25:11 PM
I would think so.
They don't need Kellyman, but preferred to discuss a deal for him rather than complete the deal for Duran.
I may be wrong though. Hopefully...
You've no idea what they preferred, what discussions have been happening or anything, the same as the rest of us.
No point worrying about it, with the people in charge of the club, and their record to date, I think they will be doing things as well as they can.
It is my opinion that this has happened based upon the reporting.
I hinted at that with the words "suggest" & "I think".
I think you made a fair assumption there, given the very public dance Duran was doing with Chelsea.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 22, 2024, 02:37:04 PM
Homegrown players’ wages should be exempt from a club’s costs. It would provide an incentive to produce players, increase the £105m, and counter the need to sell such players.
Post by: jwarry on June 22, 2024, 02:47:50 PM
“In the simplest terms, when every Premier League team tots up their annual accounts, they can have made a loss no greater than £105m across the previous three seasons.
Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on.
The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club.”
Post by: jwarry on June 23, 2024, 05:38:32 AM
Updated:
Tim - £9m (£49m required for compliance pre- 30.06)
Kellyman - £19m (£20m required)
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£40m up)
Duran - £40m (£72m up)
Maatsen- £37m (£64m up)
Iling and Enzo (value of ~£30m combined I estimate in 5 year deals - £58m up)
Looks like Doug £50m according to Romano
“Douglas Luiz will be valued at €50m in the swap deal between Aston Villa and Juventus.
Enzo Barrenechea and Samuel Iling Jr will be valued at €22m.
As reported yesterday, Aston Villa will receive €28m fee.”
Post by: SaddVillan on June 23, 2024, 08:13:45 AM
Updated:
Tim - £9m (£49m required for compliance pre- 30.06)
Kellyman - £19m (£20m required)
Dougie - £60m accumulative (£40m up)
Duran - £40m (£72m up)
Maatsen- £37m (£64m up)
Iling and Enzo (value of ~£30m combined I estimate in 5 year deals - £58m up)
Looks like Doug £50m according to Romano
“Douglas Luiz will be valued at €50m in the swap deal between Aston Villa and Juventus.
Enzo Barrenechea and Samuel Iling Jr will be valued at €22m.
As reported yesterday, Aston Villa will receive €28m fee.”
Pounds, or Euros, there's a bit of a difference.
€50m = c £43.4m , which is definitely a bit on the light side for a player if the calibre of Luiz, and leaves us just under £16m short of the rumoured £60m we need for FFP/PSR.
Is that why we're also selling Iregbuonam, Kellyman and Bogarde?
Post by: Mellin on June 23, 2024, 10:46:13 AM
Idea 1,256 to improve FFP/PSR:
Homegrown players’ wages should be exempt from a club’s costs. It would provide an incentive to produce players, increase the £105m, and counter the need to sell such players.
*Starts doctoring photos of a young Luca Digne going to school at Turves Green*
Post by: Ads on June 23, 2024, 01:56:26 PM
£58m needed for compliance by 30th June.
Doug has gone for €50m accumulative value with swapsies valued at €22m.
I've not seen the length of the deals, so 6 years now while we can would make sense before that closes. I'll assume 5 years, so we load up £3.7m.
We have Dobbin now in, again I'll assume 5 years for a righter scenario. I've seen £3m banded about, but I'll assume £9m in case it's a like for like valuation; that's another £1.8m.
These 3 incoming players push us to needing £63.5m. Now for deductions; £42m (rounded down based on the current exchange rate of 0.85) for Luiz, £9m for Tim, leaves us with £12.5m to find.
If Kellyman goes for £19m in the next week, then we're clear with a £6.5m profit. This gives us room to sign Maatsen this side of 30th June, with his £37m split over 6 years.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 23, 2024, 01:58:40 PM
Post by: jwarry on June 23, 2024, 02:17:58 PM
Still won’t be surprised to see Cash go though and a new RB come in
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 23, 2024, 02:18:20 PM
Right, trying to keep track of this, so let's go again for current state.
£58m needed for compliance by 30th June.
Doug has gone for €50m accumulative value with swapsies valued at €22m.
I've not seen the length of the deals, so 6 years now while we can would make sense before that closes. I'll assume 5 years, so we load up £3.7m.
We have Dobbin now in, again I'll assume 5 years for a righter scenario. I've seen £3m banded about, but I'll assume £9m in case it's a like for like valuation; that's another £1.8m.
These 3 incoming players push us to needing £63.5m. Now for deductions; £42m (rounded down based on the current exchange rate of 0.85) for Luiz, £9m for Tim, leaves us with £12.5m to find.
If Kellyman goes for £19m in the next week, then we're clear with a £6.5m profit. This gives us room to sign Maatsen this side of 30th June, with his £37m split over 6 years.
Amortisation is over five years, no matter how long the contract.
Post by: Gareth on June 23, 2024, 02:26:00 PM
With Bogarde as a £4m buffer.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Barry were to be moved on for a couple of £m also in next few days…just a hunch
Post by: Ads on June 23, 2024, 02:26:11 PM
Post by: Gareth on June 23, 2024, 02:27:09 PM
I thought that rule change was not in effect until the new (football) financial year of 1st July? I know they voted in December on it, but you can't alter rules mid-year I wouldn't have thought.
Depends who it benefits :-)
Post by: Dogtanian on June 23, 2024, 08:19:36 PM
Right, trying to keep track of this, so let's go again for current state.
£58m needed for compliance by 30th June.
Doug has gone for €50m accumulative value with swapsies valued at €22m.
I've not seen the length of the deals, so 6 years now while we can would make sense before that closes. I'll assume 5 years, so we load up £3.7m.
We have Dobbin now in, again I'll assume 5 years for a righter scenario. I've seen £3m banded about, but I'll assume £9m in case it's a like for like valuation; that's another £1.8m.
These 3 incoming players push us to needing £63.5m. Now for deductions; £42m (rounded down based on the current exchange rate of 0.85) for Luiz, £9m for Tim, leaves us with £12.5m to find.
If Kellyman goes for £19m in the next week, then we're clear with a £6.5m profit. This gives us room to sign Maatsen this side of 30th June, with his £37m split over 6 years.
Amortisation is over five years, no matter how long the contract.
You’re surely not going to take a full year’s depreciation hit in the final month of the year, either.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 23, 2024, 08:26:11 PM
Post by: dalians umbrella on June 23, 2024, 08:36:24 PM
Meanwhile we are shopping to fill the shelves back up
“ look son, if you go to southampton, you’ll just be sat on their bench . If you come to Villa I can guarantee you’ll be sat on Chelsea‘s bench in three years time.“
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 23, 2024, 08:38:37 PM
Post by: Dave P on June 23, 2024, 08:43:02 PM
Amortisation isn't always 5 years.
Correct. Amortisation is the length of the contract but 5 years max.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 23, 2024, 10:44:03 PM
Amortisation isn't always 5 years.
No, sorry. Length of the contract up to a maximum of five years. Like, Tim’s will be three.
Post by: Drummond on June 23, 2024, 11:02:40 PM
Post by: Dave P on June 24, 2024, 07:34:51 AM
Amortisation was as long as the contract until the vote this season which capped it at 5 years. That cap, however, doesn't start until 1st July.
So if we sign Maatsen this week on a 6 year contract, then it will be divided by the 6 years? Aston Loophole FC strikes again.
Post by: ADVILLAFAN on June 24, 2024, 07:41:56 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on June 24, 2024, 08:48:49 AM
Post by: algy on June 24, 2024, 09:12:58 AM
Right, trying to keep track of this, so let's go again for current state.We've also sold Sanson to Nice - can't remember the transfer fee, was it £4.5m or something like that?
£58m needed for compliance by 30th June.
Doug has gone for €50m accumulative value with swapsies valued at €22m.
I've not seen the length of the deals, so 6 years now while we can would make sense before that closes. I'll assume 5 years, so we load up £3.7m.
We have Dobbin now in, again I'll assume 5 years for a righter scenario. I've seen £3m banded about, but I'll assume £9m in case it's a like for like valuation; that's another £1.8m.
These 3 incoming players push us to needing £63.5m. Now for deductions; £42m (rounded down based on the current exchange rate of 0.85) for Luiz, £9m for Tim, leaves us with £12.5m to find.
If Kellyman goes for £19m in the next week, then we're clear with a £6.5m profit. This gives us room to sign Maatsen this side of 30th June, with his £37m split over 6 years.
EDIT: Transfermarkt reckons €4m
Post by: Ger Regan on June 24, 2024, 09:19:42 AM
Post by: Drummond on June 24, 2024, 09:40:51 AM
Amortisation was as long as the contract until the vote this season which capped it at 5 years. That cap, however, doesn't start until 1st July.
So if we sign Maatsen this week on a 6 year contract, then it will be divided by the 6 years? Aston Loophole FC strikes again.
Yep, that's the one, except it's not a loophole it's the rules.
The rules are what they are, exploiting them as we are is good work.
Post by: ozzjim on June 24, 2024, 09:51:02 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 24, 2024, 10:39:50 AM
Can anyone put it succinctly as to where we need to be next summer? Ie punting the issue now, how bad is it going to get this time next season?
Personally, I think there’s nothing to worry about. How bad is it now do you think? I can quite easily get behind selling the odd pure profit asset and academy graduate to continue the overall improvement of the squad.
The three key aspects are increasing revenue, an abundance of saleable assets and good recruitment. I’m confident in the former two and only time will tell on the latter.
As long as those three things are in place, the squad will continue to improve. Look at that miraculously efficient building of the midfield. We have marvelled at its assembly - SJM, Tielemans, Kamara, Ramsey and Luiz for £17.5m. We’ve now added Rogers, Barkley and Enzo, and lost Dougie, but we’re actually in the black in terms of net spend, giving us plenty financial scope within the rules to improve further.
Post by: Risso on June 24, 2024, 10:57:57 AM
Amortisation was as long as the contract until the vote this season which capped it at 5 years. That cap, however, doesn't start until 1st July.
Amortisation will still be over 6 years in the accounts, because UEFA and the Premier League aren't in charge of accounting standards and rules. What will happen is an adjustment to the PSR calculation that the club have to submit.
Post by: London Villan on June 24, 2024, 11:59:07 AM
Can anyone put it succinctly as to where we need to be next summer? Ie punting the issue now, how bad is it going to get this time next season?
The massive increase in turnover/profit will help. Turnover is going to grow by the best part of £100m next year.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 24, 2024, 12:02:08 PM
Amortisation was as long as the contract until the vote this season which capped it at 5 years. That cap, however, doesn't start until 1st July.
Amortisation will still be over 6 years in the accounts, because UEFA and the Premier League aren't in charge of accounting standards and rules. What will happen is an adjustment to the PSR calculation that the club have to submit.
Cheers Riss.
Post by: Drummond on June 24, 2024, 01:26:51 PM
Amortisation was as long as the contract until the vote this season which capped it at 5 years. That cap, however, doesn't start until 1st July.
Amortisation will still be over 6 years in the accounts, because UEFA and the Premier League aren't in charge of accounting standards and rules. What will happen is an adjustment to the PSR calculation that the club have to submit.
Yep.
Post by: Duncan Shaw on June 24, 2024, 03:35:36 PM
Post by: LeonW on June 24, 2024, 03:43:43 PM
The f*cking Beeb have got an article highlighting/moaning about it now. Watch us become the first club to be punished for working within the rules!
I think this article has been posted in another thread. I doubt we could be punished. It’s more likely that the rules would be changed. But even then, fees can be highly subjective and it would probably need to be agreed internationally to work to any common system. I can’t see this happening. I think we’re being smart and it’s upsetting people.
Post by: ender4 on June 24, 2024, 03:50:58 PM
The massive increase in turnover/profit will help. Turnover is going to grow by the best part of £100m next year.
Will it grow that much?
I was thinking:
Conference £18m to Champions League £40m = +£22m
Castore £6m to Adidas £20m = +£16m (assuming we hit the Adidas sales targets)
BK8 £8m to Betano £20m = +£12m
Premier League - equal or maybe £3-6m lower (if 2 places down)
Matchday +£3m (price rises and extra hospitality)
Other Commercial - +£2m (Tractor partner. noodle partner, etc)
Total increase - +£50 million
Post by: Smithy on June 24, 2024, 03:51:47 PM
The f*cking Beeb have got an article highlighting/moaning about it now. Watch us become the first club to be punished for working within the rules!
I think this article has been posted in another thread. I doubt we could be punished. It’s more likely that the rules would be changed. But even then, fees can be highly subjective and it would probably need to be agreed internationally to work to any common system. I can’t see this happening. I think we’re being smart and it’s upsetting people.
No rules have been broken as long as the book values are "reasonable", and I've seen nothing to suggest they are not. People will point to Kellyman, but we can point to Chuck Jnr two years ago as a precedent.
The reality is, I'm amazed it doesn't happen more often, with clubs swapping youth players for "negotiated sums" that help both parties with FFP issues. As long as the values are legitimate, I don't see an issue with it.
Post by: SaddVillan on June 24, 2024, 03:57:50 PM
The Greedy6 (and others?) getting ansty about our "creativity" in avoiding FFP/PSR?
Post by: Dogtanian on June 24, 2024, 03:58:00 PM
Ban clubs from trading with other clubs if that deal helps comply with the rules?
Ban amortisation so every club has to take the full hit at the time of purchase?
Cap players prices?
We sold Grealish and took the profit in one go and then bought three players whose fees were spread across the contracts, nobody gave a shit then.
And people have been on about the 'Grealish money' keeping us out of PSR hot water ever since.
Literally the only difference is that we're co-operating with other teams rather than trying to screw them over.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 24, 2024, 04:19:14 PM
The f*cking Beeb have got an article highlighting/moaning about it now. Watch us become the first club to be punished for working within the rules!
I think this article has been posted in another thread. I doubt we could be punished. It’s more likely that the rules would be changed. But even then, fees can be highly subjective and it would probably need to be agreed internationally to work to any common system. I can’t see this happening. I think we’re being smart and it’s upsetting people.
They haven't been complaining while Chelsea & ManC have been doing it for years.
But it's now a club outside of the marketing & media favourite six being clever within the rules, so "stone the crows! The heavens have flooded!"
Personally, I have no issue with it because we are not breaking a single rule. We are not doing anything that other clubs haven't done.
So fuck the Premier League. Fuck the other clubs. Fuck the other clubs fans.
And yet, there have very few articles saying how shit it is that Villa have to sell Douglas Luiz to be PSR compliant. PSR compliant with a loss amount that hasn't kept up to date with inflation after being set over a decade ago.
This despite Villa having no debt & owners that are within the top 5 wealthiest in the world.
The fact is, the game is rigged in favour of the marketing & media favourite clubs.
The profits that allow the likes of Chelsea & ManC to spend literal billions & create academy farms were gained unfairly. Yet they are still allowed to utilise the benefits of those profits & outspend a club as wealthy as Villa by an amount of five to one.
ManU are allowed to outspend Villa, despite them having what, half a billion? One billion pounds debt? And a stadium that is literally falling apart.
The media & marketing favourite clubs were allowed to spend themselves towards success. The sponsorship deals that now give them the profits to outspend ambitious clubs like Villa were gathered on the back of that spending.
But now that door has been shut to other clubs. So where is the outrage about the level playing field being destroyed so that others can rarely challenge the status quo?
The fact that the likes of Chelsea & ManC have been selling academy players for vast sums for years so that they can game FFP/PSR, or whatever its called this week, must have gone unnoticed by most "journalists".
Its funny how its only an outrage ever since a club outside of the media & marketing favourite clubs are using the same legal & above board ways of getting round rules that are purely in place to protect the status quo.
And if they haven't heard of Omari Kellyman & his potential, then that says more about their knowledge of youth football than it does about his valuation.
So fuck the journalists too...
Post by: LeonW on June 24, 2024, 05:11:44 PM
The f*cking Beeb have got an article highlighting/moaning about it now. Watch us become the first club to be punished for working within the rules!
I think this article has been posted in another thread. I doubt we could be punished. It’s more likely that the rules would be changed. But even then, fees can be highly subjective and it would probably need to be agreed internationally to work to any common system. I can’t see this happening. I think we’re being smart and it’s upsetting people.
They haven't been complaining while Chelsea & ManC have been doing it for years.
But it's now a club outside of the marketing & media favourite six being clever within the rules, so "stone the crows! The heavens have flooded!"
Personally, I have no issue with it because we are not breaking a single rule. We are not doing anything that other clubs haven't done.
So fuck the Premier League. Fuck the other clubs. Fuck the other clubs fans.
And yet, there have very few articles saying how shit it is that Villa have to sell Douglas Luiz to be PSR compliant. PSR compliant with a loss amount that hasn't kept up to date with inflation after being set over a decade ago.
This despite Villa having no debt & owners that are within the top 5 wealthiest in the world.
The fact is, the game is rigged in favour of the marketing & media favourite clubs.
The profits that allow the likes of Chelsea & ManC to spend literal billions & create academy farms were gained unfairly. Yet they are still allowed to utilise the benefits of those profits & outspend a club as wealthy as Villa by an amount of five to one.
ManU are allowed to outspend Villa, despite them having what, half a billion? One billion pounds debt? And a stadium that is literally falling apart.
The media & marketing favourite clubs were allowed to spend themselves towards success. The sponsorship deals that now give them the profits to outspend ambitious clubs like Villa were gathered on the back of that spending.
But now that door has been shut to other clubs. So where is the outrage about the level playing field being destroyed so that others can rarely challenge the status quo?
The fact that the likes of Chelsea & ManC have been selling academy players for vast sums for years so that they can game FFP/PSR, or whatever its called this week, must have gone unnoticed by most "journalists".
Its funny how its only an outrage ever since a club outside of the media & marketing favourite clubs are using the same legal & above board ways of getting round rules that are purely in place to protect the status quo.
And if they haven't heard of Omari Kellyman & his potential, then that says more about their knowledge of youth football than it does about his valuation.
So fuck the journalists too...
That’s pretty much it, Pablo. A lot of these journalists want to maintain certain relationships with clubs and individuals involved in those clubs. As those sky 6 clubs get more clicks, etc, they are more likely to want to keep those clubs happy than a potential usurper. You only have to look at how sky have behaved with the super league debacle; like a dog that had been kicked and decided to love those that did the kicking more than ever before.
Post by: Paul.S on June 24, 2024, 05:33:39 PM
The f*cking Beeb have got an article highlighting/moaning about it now. Watch us become the first club to be punished for working within the rules!
Let them try. I don’t think our owners are ones to back down and take things in the chin.
Post by: Stu on June 24, 2024, 05:57:52 PM
Post by: gpbarr on June 24, 2024, 06:15:26 PM
Long may that continue.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 24, 2024, 07:02:58 PM
Post by: dalians umbrella on June 24, 2024, 07:15:40 PM
Post by: algy on June 24, 2024, 07:28:44 PM
I think it’s a compliment to our owners that suddenly, Villa are seen to be working around PSR when the top 6 have abused it for years. Shows we have people in charge not afraid to challenge perceived glass ceilings and go after those (PL) intent on stifling competition.Absolutely. We're the Villa are we're taking over. Get used to it, bitches
Long may that continue.
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 24, 2024, 07:37:49 PM
And if it’s about the timing, well that’s the nature of having this type of deadline. It causes teams to scramble.
Post by: dalians umbrella on June 24, 2024, 07:55:21 PM
Its rule B15 states: “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.”
https://archive.ph/2TL8J#selection-2299.0-2299.498
Post by: Dogtanian on June 24, 2024, 07:56:55 PM
Post by: dalians umbrella on June 24, 2024, 08:00:38 PM
Okay… and what rule are we circumventing?
I'm sure they'd find one.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 24, 2024, 08:04:12 PM
The media are talking about it because there’s no story if it’s normal.
I would like to see them challenge this in a court.
Post by: dalians umbrella on June 24, 2024, 08:08:48 PM
Fans are talking about it because they don’t understand how businesses work.
The media are talking about it because there’s no story if it’s normal.
I would like to see them challenge this in a court.
But these decisions aren’t made in a court but in a private members club where 20 clubs sign up to the rules
Post by: Dogtanian on June 24, 2024, 08:10:21 PM
Fans are talking about it because they don’t understand how businesses work.
The media are talking about it because there’s no story if it’s normal.
I would like to see them challenge this in a court.
But these decisions aren’t made in a court but in a private members club where 20 clubs sign up to the rules
That’s how rules get changed, not investigations or judgements.
Post by: Smithy on June 24, 2024, 09:29:02 PM
Okay… and what rule are we circumventing?
And that's precisely the point. If we were selling kellyman for £50m and buying Maatsen for £70m, they could point to this rule and probably make a VERY compelling case that we'd attempted to circumvent PSR rules.
But at the current prices, they simply can't. West Ham have just spent £23m on an 18-year-old from Brazil that no one had heard of a month ago. The reality is, this IS what promising teenagers cost these days. And we're fortunate we've had a few promising teenagers in recent years.
Post by: villadelph on June 24, 2024, 09:31:53 PM
Okay… and what rule are we circumventing?
And that's precisely the point. If we were selling kellyman for £50m and buying Maatsen for £70m, they could point to this rule and probably make a VERY compelling case that we'd attempted to circumvent PSR rules.
But at the current prices, they simply can't. West Ham have just spent £23m on an 18-year-old from Brazil that no one had heard of a month ago. The reality is, this IS what promising teenagers cost these days. And we're fortunate we've had a few promising teenagers in recent years.
Totally agree.. no one was crying foul when we sold Chuk last summer.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 24, 2024, 09:33:01 PM
Post by: Ian. on June 24, 2024, 09:36:17 PM
Post by: Smithy on June 24, 2024, 09:41:37 PM
Imagine if we got a slap on the wrists (or worse) for "overvaluing" Kellyman, and in two years he's a Chelsea regular, in the England team next to Bellingham, and worth £100m. Can we retrospectively have our slap/fine removed?
I understand how you can question values for established players, but teenagers? You're paying for potential, and sometimes it's just not realised.
Post by: villadelph on June 24, 2024, 09:49:05 PM
If people are complaining about inflated fees, can we then argue and receive the extra £20m on Doug’s fee?
I mean, just look at Manyoo and Chelsea's transfer business over the last two years. You want to talk about inflated fees..? They invented it.
100m for Mudryk and Antony, who's that helping? Because it sure ain't sustainable.
Post by: Steve67 on June 24, 2024, 10:02:44 PM
Post by: Beard82 on June 24, 2024, 10:03:00 PM
The rules are stupid - basically its like going to a bank and saying that you want to take 1,000 out my millions of savings - and them saying - you don't earn enough.
And then someone else saying, I want to take 100,000 out, and add it to my millions of debt - that being fine.
Or some other analogy that a better example
Post by: Beard82 on June 24, 2024, 10:07:09 PM
Player prices are shortly subjective? How on earth can anybody prove that Omari Kellyman isn’t worth £19 million or, is worth £19 million? It’s all a subjective load of crap. Nothing to see here.Exactly - at some point someone will point out all the numbers are ridiculous and have been for a long time.
Every fee is bollocks until it delivers - what's Grealish done to be worth 100m - has he delivered 100m of value to Man City? Its like house prices - no pulls at the thread of what nonsense it is, because other wise the whole system collapses.
Post by: BC Villain on June 24, 2024, 11:07:38 PM
Like you say - its impossible to judge. FFP needs to be overhauled - its just this summer clubs have to take it into there own hands.
The rules are stupid - basically its like going to a bank and saying that you want to take 1,000 out my millions of savings - and them saying - you don't earn enough.
And then someone else saying, I want to take 100,000 out, and add it to my millions of debt - that being fine.
Or some other analogy that a better example
And this is exactly why so many fans up and down the country are sticking two fingers up and walking away from Premier League football.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 24, 2024, 11:11:51 PM
Like you say - its impossible to judge. FFP needs to be overhauled - its just this summer clubs have to take it into there own hands.
The rules are stupid - basically its like going to a bank and saying that you want to take 1,000 out my millions of savings - and them saying - you don't earn enough.
And then someone else saying, I want to take 100,000 out, and add it to my millions of debt - that being fine.
Or some other analogy that a better example
And this is exactly why so many fans up and down the country are sticking two fingers up and walking away from Premier League football.
They're not, though, are they?
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 24, 2024, 11:13:41 PM
Post by: LeeB on June 24, 2024, 11:19:37 PM
Well, Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United fans, maybe.
At last, something that Blues fans lead the way in.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 24, 2024, 11:22:06 PM
Post by: brontebilly on June 24, 2024, 11:26:24 PM
Player prices are shortly subjective? How on earth can anybody prove that Omari Kellyman isn’t worth £19 million or, is worth £19 million? It’s all a subjective load of crap. Nothing to see here.
Might not be...but Stevie Wonder could see all these deals.... Iroegbunam, Dobbin, Kellyman etc stink. Proving it might be a different matter. They need to go back to the drawing board with FFP/PSR and some kind of agreed accounting value for players (assets). Old ground here but the examples above just highlight the incentive for running academy "farms".
Post by: ozzjim on June 25, 2024, 06:18:04 AM
Post by: algy on June 25, 2024, 06:45:14 AM
I agree with all of this.Player prices are shortly subjective? How on earth can anybody prove that Omari Kellyman isn’t worth £19 million or, is worth £19 million? It’s all a subjective load of crap. Nothing to see here.
Might not be...but Stevie Wonder could see all these deals.... Iroegbunam, Dobbin, Kellyman etc stink. Proving it might be a different matter. They need to go back to the drawing board with FFP/PSR and some kind of agreed accounting value for players (assets). Old ground here but the examples above just highlight the incentive for running academy "farms".
We've been put in a ridiculous situation where we've no choice but to dismantle a squad that has been built - in reality - perfectly sustainably for the most part. The rules are stupid and I'm glad we've found a creative way out of it.
But it's really not hard to see that it looks a bit dodgy with the amount of swap deals going on.
Post by: jwarry on June 25, 2024, 06:59:24 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 07:55:47 AM
Kellyman and Iroegbunam - are they really getting many minutes next season? They need to play regularly to develop, it makes perfect sense to let them go.
Do people want us to go back to the good old days of running an academy that just released all the players?
Luiz we would ideally like to keep, but he’s the one with the value that’s going to keep us in the limits, so we have to let him go.
Post by: Bent Neilsens Screamer on June 25, 2024, 08:20:50 AM
I don’t get the idea that the deals we are doing are horrible, they all make sense before a very important season.
Kellyman and Iroegbunam - are they really getting many minutes next season? They need to play regularly to develop, it makes perfect sense to let them go.
Do people want us to go back to the good old days of running an academy that just released all the players?
Luiz we would ideally like to keep, but he’s the one with the value that’s going to keep us in the limits, so we have to let him go.
I don’t think anyone thinks the deals are horrible but I can certainly see why, particularly the Kellyman one, has raised a few eyebrows. I’d think the vast majority of non Villa fans would never have heard of him before so for him to move for £19m would be strange.
As has been pointed out when Man City or Liverpool sold unknowns for big money, it was fine.
Post by: ozzjim on June 25, 2024, 08:22:39 AM
I don’t get the idea that the deals we are doing are horrible, they all make sense before a very important season.
Kellyman and Iroegbunam - are they really getting many minutes next season? They need to play regularly to develop, it makes perfect sense to let them go.
Do people want us to go back to the good old days of running an academy that just released all the players?
Luiz we would ideally like to keep, but he’s the one with the value that’s going to keep us in the limits, so we have to let him go.
They have been pushed into happening early in the window for FFP, but looking at our business the last 3 years it is not out of the ordinary. As soon as people challenge that other clubs have sold as many players for similar or more (Man City etc) the journalists that are making a fuss on twitter say it is different or stop replying. This constant need to make sure 4-5 clubs have the most press, the most time talked about etc, protected to keep the status quo is really annoying.
Post by: algy on June 25, 2024, 08:26:52 AM
I think it's probably more to do with, for example, buying Dobbin off Everton and selling them Timmy. Then buying Maatsen off Chelsea and selling them Kellyman. Or selling Dougie to Juventus but taking Iling-Junior and The Barron off them.I don’t get the idea that the deals we are doing are horrible, they all make sense before a very important season.
Kellyman and Iroegbunam - are they really getting many minutes next season? They need to play regularly to develop, it makes perfect sense to let them go.
Do people want us to go back to the good old days of running an academy that just released all the players?
Luiz we would ideally like to keep, but he’s the one with the value that’s going to keep us in the limits, so we have to let him go.
I don’t think anyone thinks the deals are horrible but I can certainly see why, particularly the Kellyman one, has raised a few eyebrows. I’d think the vast majority of non Villa fans would never have heard of him before so for him to move for £19m would be strange.
As has been pointed out when Man City or Liverpool sold unknowns for big money, it was fine.
I mean, reciprocal transfers do happen, but they're fairly rare. And we've had potentially 3 of them in a month, all with either clubs that have FFP concerns ... or with Juventus, who have form for dodgy reciprocal transfers.
You don't have to be fucking Columbo to think the deals might be driven by creative accounting.
Post by: Rigadon on June 25, 2024, 08:30:57 AM
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 25, 2024, 08:41:02 AM
Post by: Drummond on June 25, 2024, 08:45:59 AM
Luiz is going to the most famous Italian club, for good money, at the right time contract wise. Iling Junior is a great young prospect, coming back to England, to develop with a Champions League side. Barrenechea is another top prospect, with good experience who we need as cover for central midfield.
Iroegbunam is a good player, who needs more game time, but he's leaving a Champions League side and going further down the Premier League, which all makes sense.
Which leaves Dobbin. A good prospect, moving to a Champions League side (hence the bump in fee), who could set the world alight under a progressive, great manager. Nobody is letting their youth go cheap if they have anything about them.
We're in a difficult situation PSR wise, so we're working on solutions, and the naive seems to be a good solution. Nobody would blink if these deals happened in August, but we're bucking the trend, and doing business early as it suits us, and suits the other clubs we're dealing with.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 25, 2024, 08:49:54 AM
The only thing they can do is ensure the transfer fees are not inflated. And they’ve no real chance if proving that.
We just need to point them back two years to Chukky. Same experience as Kellyman, same potential as Kellyman, same cost as Kellyman.
Post by: lovejoy on June 25, 2024, 08:50:53 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 25, 2024, 08:50:58 AM
Post by: brontebilly on June 25, 2024, 09:02:34 AM
The idiocy of having a clubs FFP measured to June and a transfer window that runs to August is striking.
Agreed, that beggars belief.
Post by: Mr Diggles on June 25, 2024, 09:03:57 AM
They are reciprocal deals? Yeah sure, so what?
The values are inflated? Isn't this what has been happening for years under a number of leagues? The truth is the market value of a player is only exactly the amount a buyer is willing to buy at and a selling club is willing to sell at (with some moderation <cough, Juventus, cough>)
Is it an abuse of young players trying to bridge the gap between U21s and First Team? Maybe, but for us at least that gap has widened since Emery etc transformed our fortunes, so the days of a youngster breaking through from our Academy seem even further away now. So the only chance they have to progress is going to be away from Villa Park unless they are exceptional.
I understand it might appear to be a fudge from the outside, but it really isn't and the club has nothing to apologise for. The PSR rules themselves are absurd as many have said, and to be honest, there are plenty of other places to look for moral and ethincal corrosion in the Premier League universe before they start looking at these deals.
Yeah, fuck 'em all.
Post by: Risso on June 25, 2024, 09:08:55 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 25, 2024, 09:12:16 AM
Any questions at all re the values of our players. Simply print out the list of Man U’s top 20 signings by value, slap it on the Premier League’s desk, then turn on our heels and walk out without saying a word.
Just "Anthony - £82m plus add ons" would suffice.
Post by: Monty on June 25, 2024, 09:17:46 AM
Post by: Drummond on June 25, 2024, 09:29:33 AM
Post by: Risso on June 25, 2024, 09:31:23 AM
Fuck 'em all. The league and Sky have done as much as anyone to turn this sport into a business - well, everything we've done this summer is completely in line with the current accounting regulations for businesses and the relevant accounting standards.
They are reciprocal deals? Yeah sure, so what?
The values are inflated? Isn't this what has been happening for years under a number of leagues? The truth is the market value of a player is only exactly the amount a buyer is willing to buy at and a selling club is willing to sell at (with some moderation <cough, Juventus, cough>)
Is it an abuse of young players trying to bridge the gap between U21s and First Team? Maybe, but for us at least that gap has widened since Emery etc transformed our fortunes, so the days of a youngster breaking through from our Academy seem even further away now. So the only chance they have to progress is going to be away from Villa Park unless they are exceptional.
I understand it might appear to be a fudge from the outside, but it really isn't and the club has nothing to apologise for. The PSR rules themselves are absurd as many have said, and to be honest, there are plenty of other places to look for moral and ethincal corrosion in the Premier League universe before they start looking at these deals.
Yeah, fuck 'em all.
Honestly, fuck them. We tried to play nicely and ask for an increase in losses, but that wasn't allowed. So now we're just going to sell players, like the rules pretty much demand.
Post by: PeterWithe on June 25, 2024, 09:33:26 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on June 25, 2024, 09:35:35 AM
The idiocy of having a clubs FFP measured to June and a transfer window that runs to August is striking.
Why? There has to be a cut off and most player contracts usually end on 30th June anyway as it has traditionally been the end of the "season" date.
Post by: jwarry on June 25, 2024, 09:43:13 AM
The Athletic piece makes another point about the Everton deals, in that it allows them breathing space to fend off low ball bids for Branthwaite from Man Utd, which I sense is where much of the complaints originate.
I think you’ve just hit the nail on the head
Post by: Drummond on June 25, 2024, 09:47:17 AM
In the future will we ever know what value of players we needed to sell, or does it only come out if you are charged for non-compliance?
Wouldn't have thought so...
Post by: olaftab on June 25, 2024, 09:51:12 AM
Aston Villa have joined Chelsea in the race to sign Hoffenheim's 21-year-old Germany forward Maximilian Beier. (Sky Sport Germany), external
The Premier League has warned clubs that selling players to and from each other in order to comply with financial rules could breach regulations about acting in good faith. (Times - subscription required), external
Post by: olaftab on June 25, 2024, 09:52:33 AM
Post by: Tuscans on June 25, 2024, 09:56:12 AM
🚨💣 Aston Villa have surpassed their requirement to sell players for PSR compliance & will now begin to make tactical improvements to their squad!
@David_Ornstein
#avfc
Post by: Chris Harte on June 25, 2024, 10:20:37 AM
Couple of items from BBC Gossip:Oh no! How dare we sell assets to comply with the rules. Anyone would think it was a business.
The Premier League has warned clubs that selling players to and from each other in order to comply with financial rules could breach regulations about acting in good faith. (Times - subscription required), external
Post by: Drummond on June 25, 2024, 10:28:42 AM
Post by: itbrvilla on June 25, 2024, 10:29:23 AM
I honestly don't quite see how it's any more nefarious than swap deals have always been.I just read on Ian Taylors Wikipedia page that by including guy Whittingham in the deal meant that SWFC only made Guy Whittingham as profit so didn't need to pay Port Vale any of the clauses in his transfer contract.
Post by: jwarry on June 25, 2024, 10:34:33 AM
Premier League monitoring clubs over ‘PSR loophole’ deals
The Premier League is monitoring player transfers that could be used to exploit a loophole in its spending rules to ensure they do not breach regulations about clubs acting in good faith.
Everton, Aston Villa and Chelsea, who all face pressure in complying with Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) for the 2023-24 season, have been involved in transfers or talks with a view to buying and selling players to each other.
The Premier League has rules about clubs being obliged to act in good faith towards each other and the league. If transfer fees were seen as heavily inflated to circumvent the PSR rules, that could potentially be viewed as a breach.
Villa signed Everton’s academy product Lewis Dobbin, 21, on Sunday, while the Merseyside club brought in Villa’s Tim Iroegbunam in a deal worth a reported £9million. Talks are also understood to be taking place about Villa selling another academy product, the 18-year-old midfielder Omari Kellyman, to Chelsea, with the home-grown Dutch defender Ian Maatsen moving the other way for £37.5million.
Everton are understood to have offered Newcastle United their striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin and want the 19-year-old winger Yankuba Minteh, who attracted the attention of numerous clubs while playing on loan for Feyenoord last season, to move the other way. However sources say Newcastle have reservations about Calvert-Lewin, who has had a chequered fitness record in recent seasons, and have received big-money offers for Minteh from the continent.
The transfers make financial sense for both the buying and selling clubs when it comes to complying with PSR for last season before the June 30 deadline. Clubs are limited to losing a maximum of £105million across a three-season period, though some losses can be written off, such as spending on infrastructure or youth football.
The entire transfer fee from the sale of an academy-raised player can immediately be banked as cash income, while the fee from any purchase of a player can be spread out across the length of his contract in a process called amortisation.
Therefore, for example, if a player is signed for £10million on a five-year deal, the amortised cost for a single season is only £2million.
The Premier League has declined to comment on any specific deals but other top-flight clubs believe they are within the rules, even if they are exploiting a loophole.
Clubs have been made aware that charging each other highly inflated fees to circumvent PSR rules would potentially be an issue for the league.
Its rule B15 states: “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.”
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 25, 2024, 10:41:54 AM
Post by: Clark W Griswold on June 25, 2024, 12:06:32 PM
I honestly don't quite see how it's any more nefarious than swap deals have always been.I just read on Ian Taylors Wikipedia page that by including guy Whittingham in the deal meant that SWFC only made Guy Whittingham as profit so didn't need to pay Port Vale any of the clauses in his transfer contract.
Sorry ignore what i put, i'm getting confused !
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 25, 2024, 12:08:14 PM
This rule, cited in the Times article is a bit of a worry:
Its rule B15 states: “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.”
https://archive.ph/2TL8J#selection-2299.0-2299.498
Good luck enforcing those rules.
And if they do punish us, THEN, I would support legal action to fight any unjust punishments.
If we chose to go down that route of course.
But I doubt they will do anything because Chelsea is involved & punishing us over Kellyman means punishing Chelsea too.
And that wont happen.
Post by: Gareth on June 25, 2024, 12:08:15 PM
Now it’s Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle who all have eyes on top 4 prize and Everton who will likely head that way too once sort out owners and new ground they have took an interest.
Enjoy every second of their indignation and whichever journalists they channel that indignation through
As for ‘spirit of…’ they can do one…remember the European Super League…jog on cartel cretins
Post by: VillaTim on June 25, 2024, 12:08:56 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 25, 2024, 12:20:43 PM
Couple of items from BBC Gossip:
Aston Villa have joined Chelsea in the race to sign Hoffenheim's 21-year-old Germany forward Maximilian Beier. (Sky Sport Germany), external
The Premier League has warned clubs that selling players to and from each other in order to comply with financial rules could breach regulations about acting in good faith. (Times - subscription required), external
So now we aren't allowed to sell to other clubs who also need to comply with their ridiculous rules?
I would really love to see them try & enforce this.
If Sawiris was in favour of the legal route before, one can only imagine his reaction if they do try.
And if they do, I would support both legal action against unfair punishments, but also the original legal action Sawiris eluded to about the unfair business & sporting practices of the current rules.
This would be the catalyst for changing my mind over that because it would be a reaction to the bullshit punishments, but also for the reasons why we needed to act like we have in the first place.
They are determined to dock points off us.
Great. Bring it on. I look forward to our lawyers ripping them a new arsehole...
🚨💣 Aston Villa have surpassed their requirement to sell players for PSR compliance & will now begin to make tactical improvements to their squad!
@David_Ornstein
#avfc
There have been a lot of ups & downs with this process.
Some of the choices we have had to make I love, some of them I hate, but it will be interesting to see what we do with this bullshit out of the way.
Post by: VillaTim on June 25, 2024, 12:27:43 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 25, 2024, 12:29:37 PM
Post by: andyh on June 25, 2024, 12:32:22 PM
Post by: Ads on June 25, 2024, 01:02:10 PM
The offending Times article by Ziegler.
It seems highly coincidental that the same journalist on 13th June was posting on X about how Man United's representatives had come to an agreement with Everton's Braithwaite, for personal terms. This being despite Everton being clear he wasn't for sale.
If the origins and intent of the article weren't clear enough already.
Post by: upthevile1874! on June 25, 2024, 01:12:36 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 01:17:58 PM
https://www.football365.com/news/will-premier-league-block-chelsea-aston-villa-transfers-maatsen-kellyman (https://www.football365.com/news/will-premier-league-block-chelsea-aston-villa-transfers-maatsen-kellyman)
Pretty much dismisses everything except the most subjective criteria. Basically you'd have to argue that we shouldn't sell players because we need to sell players!
Also, I had a chat with my former financial director about swapping assets. He scoffed and said that even if you swapped an asset with a nothing book value for another asset you would be able to value the incoming asset on the books anyway.
Can any accountants shed some light on this?
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 25, 2024, 01:36:53 PM
The press said sweet FA when Southampton were paying 15m for Edozie, Charles, Bizunu etc from Man City. Not a whimper. Or when Wolves had half of the Mendes rosta there clearly under 3rd party ownership. Or indeed when Archer and Chucky went for 19 or so last summer and the summer before. But now their real paymasters don't like that other clubs are not taking the cartel fix it rules lying down, the press are whinging like bastards. Anyone would think none of them want a competition.
Mainly driven by the redfilth i would hazard a guess as no one wants to play the game with any of their ridiculously over valued, over paid players - good fuck em
Post by: chrisw1 on June 25, 2024, 01:40:00 PM
Kellyman is comparable with Chuk & Ramsey. Cole Palmer was twice as much with only 18 appearances for Man City.
And good luck to them trying to prove a young DM with PL experience and fantastic potential is worth less than £9m.
If anything, in my opinion, we have undervalued Luiz.
Sick of the PL and press agenda right now.
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 25, 2024, 01:44:11 PM
Quote
Sick of the PL and press agenda right now.
Rather than thinking i was paranoid - this is so clearly a thing now.
As another poster said above - If this is unfair - remember the scum 6 wanting to break away - that will never be forgotten you cnuts.
Post by: Mr Diggles on June 25, 2024, 01:46:07 PM
I quite like this article which goes through the Fair Market Value criteria stated in the Premier League rules;
https://www.football365.com/news/will-premier-league-block-chelsea-aston-villa-transfers-maatsen-kellyman (https://www.football365.com/news/will-premier-league-block-chelsea-aston-villa-transfers-maatsen-kellyman)
Pretty much dismisses everything except the most subjective criteria. Basically you'd have to argue that we shouldn't sell players because we need to sell players!
Also, I had a chat with my former financial director about swapping assets. He scoffed and said that even if you swapped an asset with a nothing book value for another asset you would be able to value the incoming asset on the books anyway.
Can any accountants shed some light on this?
Yes I think that's right - any asset coming in to a company's books has to be recognised at cost or market value or fair value. How that is defined is based on the asset. In this case the player will have a contract, so his value to the acquiring club is certainly definable and recognisable.
On the other side of that hypothetical, it's unlikely you'd ever have a player with no value on the books - either their cost has been fully amortised but they still have a contract (and therefore a Useful Economic Life 'UEL') or the player has no remaining cost and no contract, therefore is a free agent and the club can't use that player in any deal.
Happy to be proven wrong on either of those points though
Post by: Ads on June 25, 2024, 01:48:41 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 01:50:03 PM
I quite like this article which goes through the Fair Market Value criteria stated in the Premier League rules;
https://www.football365.com/news/will-premier-league-block-chelsea-aston-villa-transfers-maatsen-kellyman (https://www.football365.com/news/will-premier-league-block-chelsea-aston-villa-transfers-maatsen-kellyman)
Pretty much dismisses everything except the most subjective criteria. Basically you'd have to argue that we shouldn't sell players because we need to sell players!
Also, I had a chat with my former financial director about swapping assets. He scoffed and said that even if you swapped an asset with a nothing book value for another asset you would be able to value the incoming asset on the books anyway.
Can any accountants shed some light on this?
Yes I think that's right - any asset coming in to a company's books has to be recognised at cost or market value or fair value. How that is defined is based on the asset. In this case the player will have a contract, so his value to the acquiring club is certainly definable and recognisable.
On the other side of that hypothetical, it's unlikely you'd ever have a player with no value on the books - either their cost has been fully amortised but they still have a contract (and therefore a Useful Economic Life 'UEL') or the player has no remaining cost and no contract, therefore is a free agent and the club can't use that player in any deal.
Happy to be proven wrong on either of those points though
Yep, this is why I asked. If you could swap assets and not value the incoming asset, you'd effectively be able to hide profits from tax calculations and all sorts.
So the arguments in the media that if we had done a swap deal then we wouldn't have improved our position because the player would have a value of £0 are rubbish.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 25, 2024, 02:23:50 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 25, 2024, 02:24:26 PM
Post by: Paul.S on June 25, 2024, 02:33:54 PM
The simple truth is we have some the established few rattled. Watch them all go from "isn't Villa a nice story" to us being the most hated club because we will disrupt their existence. The time of Aston Villa has come and they don't like it.
That’s exactly what’s happened since we confirmed a CL place. Now we are proving we’ve got the financial expertise it’ll get even worse. As a typical Villa supporter I’ve got that thought that it’ll all go wrong but their obsession with us proves we are onto something.
Post by: London Villan on June 25, 2024, 02:43:49 PM
Post by: jwarry on June 25, 2024, 02:43:55 PM
The offending Times article by Ziegler.
It seems highly coincidental that the same journalist on 13th June was posting on X about how Man United's representatives had come to an agreement with Everton's Braithwaite, for personal terms. This being despite Everton being clear he wasn't for sale.
If the origins and intent of the article weren't clear enough already.
Good spot Ads. How can we make this clear to the ‘social media world’?
Post by: Ads on June 25, 2024, 03:03:26 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 25, 2024, 03:14:22 PM
There's something a bit Small Heath about this Ratcliffe. Whining in the press, trying to get players on the cheap, not stumping up for Ashworth, mass redundancies, begging for a new ground etc. Skint rats.
Add also the (not that i have any sympathy) the totally unacceptable and unprofessional way he treated the Ten Hag situation, openly telling the media they were sounding out other Managers whilst the silly fucker was still in the job, is nothing short of a professional disgrace.
No one wants their players - as they are over hyped and overpaid and lets hope they get their financial pants pulled down again as they look to buy the "next big thing" the Sun and other media outlets link them with.
I really cannot see them challenging for the League or even the CL any time soon - good
You had your time - now just fuck off
Post by: jwarry on June 25, 2024, 03:17:08 PM
There's something a bit Small Heath about this Ratcliffe. Whining in the press, trying to get players on the cheap, not stumping up for Ashworth, mass redundancies, begging for a new ground etc. Skint rats.
Add also the (not that i have any sympathy) the totally unacceptable and unprofessional way he treated the Ten Hag situation, openly telling the media they were sounding out other Managers whilst the silly fucker was still in the job, is nothing short of a professional disgrace.
No one wants their players - as they are over hyped and overpaid and lets hope they get their financial pants pulled down again as they look to buy the "next big thing" the Sun and other media outlets link them with.
I really cannot see them challenging for the League or even the CL any time soon - good
You had your time - now just fuck off
Yes hopefully he’s just adding to the poison rather than curing it
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 03:47:09 PM
"The agenda's and wants of where teams want to go, how they want to operate has just been stretched too far to have a meaningful competition between Villa, City, Newcastle vs. Sheffield United, Luton, Ipswich etc."
;D ;D ;D
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 25, 2024, 03:55:49 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 25, 2024, 04:00:39 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 04:01:10 PM
"To be honest i think we should leave the league, its gone too far and i dont think it can be brought back under control. Get out while the going is good. Even that shitty super league plan sounds attractive at this pont."
Post by: London Villan on June 25, 2024, 04:02:11 PM
Post by: LeeB on June 25, 2024, 04:04:43 PM
Post by: Rigadon on June 25, 2024, 04:15:16 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 25, 2024, 04:17:28 PM
If it was other clubs doing this rather than us the view on here would be very different. But it is us so in the true hypocrisy of a football fan, fuck them and suck on our claret and blue Champions League balls.
For some, maybe. I said FFP was just a disgusting exercise in maintaining the status quo when we were looking at the fixture list wondering when the Burton Albion game was.
Post by: Gareth on June 25, 2024, 04:17:39 PM
We've seen it with plenty of clubs gaming the system. I trust we are doing it within the rules, but until the loopholes are closed let's crack on.
There’s no loop hole to close…clubs are free to trade between each other…had we been selling players for mad fees to Zed or Unai’s team yes but PL clubs are free to buy and sell from each other…just because those clubs get pissy about it is irrelevant
Post by: Risso on June 25, 2024, 04:19:38 PM
There's something a bit Small Heath about this Ratcliffe. Whining in the press, trying to get players on the cheap, not stumping up for Ashworth, mass redundancies, begging for a new ground etc. Skint rats.
My sister is a director in one of his chemical companies. All that side of the business have had a bad year, and now's he's trying to use them as the cash cow for his Man U vanity project.
Post by: Dave on June 25, 2024, 04:44:55 PM
Bless them, to borrow a quote from Noel Gallagher, Man Utd are the club holding a fork in a world made of soup.
Who clearly nicked it from the H&V house band.
Quote
I’m cold and I’m hungry and I’m in Dundalk
I’ve got no bus fare, I’ve gotta walk
It’s raining soup and I’ve got a fork
Where be my camper van?
Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer
And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer
And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of
Bob Wilson – anchorman
Post by: DrGonzo on June 25, 2024, 06:49:51 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 25, 2024, 10:00:29 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 10:14:16 PM
Every transfer is a gamble, but they’re certainly not buying Dobbin thinking he’s not got the potential to succeed with us.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 25, 2024, 10:20:23 PM
Pretty sure it’s not in the owner’s or Emery’s master plan to bin off players we want for players we don’t want.
Every transfer is a gamble, but they’re certainly not buying Dobbin thinking he’s not got the potential to succeed with us.
No but why buy both Illing Jnr and Dobbin when they play the same position?
hypothetically, for £10m more we could trigger Nico Williams’ release clause and avoid the whole ‘potential’ bit.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 10:23:19 PM
Pretty sure it’s not in the owner’s or Emery’s master plan to bin off players we want for players we don’t want.
Every transfer is a gamble, but they’re certainly not buying Dobbin thinking he’s not got the potential to succeed with us.
No but why buy both Illing Jnr and Dobbin when they play the same position?
hypothetically, for £10m more we could trigger Nico Williams’ release clause and avoid the whole ‘potential’ bit.
He has the potential to play in more than one position, including Ollie’s.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5586504/2024/06/25/lewis-dobbin-aston-villa-transfer-rating/ (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5586504/2024/06/25/lewis-dobbin-aston-villa-transfer-rating/)
Post by: Dave on June 25, 2024, 10:27:24 PM
Pretty sure it’s not in the owner’s or Emery’s master plan to bin off players we want for players we don’t want.
Every transfer is a gamble, but they’re certainly not buying Dobbin thinking he’s not got the potential to succeed with us.
No but why buy both Illing Jnr and Dobbin when they play the same position?
hypothetically, for £10m more we could trigger Nico Williams’ release clause and avoid the whole ‘potential’ bit.
Although the most recent reports were that Arsenal were now less interested as they were worried that their top earners would get upset about how much they'd have to pay him.
So given they've got plenty of players earning between £200,000 - 300,000 per week, I'd wonder how much we'd really pull at that thread.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 25, 2024, 10:30:39 PM
With better finances - and we are getting there - we can take the best bits or the rules whilst trying to also buy Nico Williams directly without buying two similar aged players that might reach his levels.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 25, 2024, 10:39:05 PM
Dobbin needs more development I think, so not sure he’s going to be starting any time soon.
So it’s not like they’re the same player.
The cost of Williams isn’t just the transfer fee, we are not going to pay his wage demands at this time.
Post by: Ads on June 25, 2024, 10:41:17 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 25, 2024, 10:42:55 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 25, 2024, 10:43:58 PM
Iling-Junior is more experienced and is more than likely coming to compete for a shirt.
Dobbin needs more development I think, so not sure he’s going to be starting any time soon.
So it’s not like they’re the same player.
The cost of Williams isn’t just the transfer fee, we are not going to pay his wage demands at this time.
Yup Illing-Junior will be looking to get into the first team.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 26, 2024, 08:07:47 AM
In an ideal world I don’t think we’d want to sign both Illing Jnr AND Dobbin (or sell Kellyman), so whilst we have got ourselves out of a hole we don’t want it to be an integral part of our transfer strategy.
Also, thanks to Emery, we are trading in a rising market, with players values increasing. Imagine having a bad season and falling prices. then we are at risk having to sell our best players at low prices.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 26, 2024, 08:37:10 AM
The point I’m failing to make is this juggling PSR rules means we have to buy and sell players for reasons other than their ability.
With regards to selling players, how is that any different to normal? We’ve sold plenty of good players we’d rather have held on to.
I think too much is being made of all this in the media. There is no way we are buying players just because it helps us and Everton.
I am sure we wouldn’t have bought Dobbin if we didn’t rate him. There is, though, a system of financial controls in place that forces clubs ton constantly be vigilant on their three year net spend and a result of that is that there are market distortions - like selling home grown players being particularly good for PSR numbers. It has become another element in assessing signings, yes, but not in itself a standalone reason for signing someone.
As for selling youth products, I hope we continue to do it. Academies consider producing one regular league player every few years as a financial success. We’ve generated a fortune with ours. 20m for a player with an hour’s worth of football? 20m for Chuk?
These figures all add up. Man City and Chelsea do the same - train and buy young players who never actually play for them and get sold for a lot of money.
We need to get used to this, it’s not a passing fad.
Post by: LeeB on June 26, 2024, 08:38:38 AM
The point I’m failing to make is this juggling PSR rules means we have to buy and sell players for reasons other than their ability.
In an ideal world I don’t think we’d want to sign both Illing Jnr AND Dobbin (or sell Kellyman), so whilst we have got ourselves out of a hole we don’t want it to be an integral part of our transfer strategy.
Also, thanks to Emery, we are trading in a rising market, with players values increasing. Imagine having a bad season and falling prices. then we are at risk having to sell our best players at low prices.
I don't agree on that, whilst it's obviously a factor we're also having to upgrade the squad in rapid time as a result of our success so there's the need to maybe trade some potential for experience to deal in the here and now.
Post by: andyh on June 26, 2024, 08:45:11 AM
Iling-Junior is more experienced and is more than likely coming to compete for a shirt.I'm sure we were saying the same about Rogers.
Dobbin needs more development I think, so not sure he’s going to be starting any time soon....................
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 26, 2024, 08:53:39 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 26, 2024, 09:11:16 AM
The timing of when a player matures is a big part of this. A player who is ready at a time where we have a weakness in their area can progress into the first team, but that same player coming through at a time where we are strong is most likely going to get sold.
Philogene is another example. We wanted him to stay, but he wanted to be playing more matches which his ability deserved. We couldn't offer it to him last summer so we sold him because it was best for both his development and our finances.
You're taking a gamble on youth. You don't know what the situation will be when they mature, years later but you try your best to either use them or make them work financially. We release far more players than we ever use or sell.
Post by: Dave on June 26, 2024, 09:19:32 AM
Philogene is another example. We wanted him to stay, but he wanted to be playing more matches which his ability deserved. We couldn't offer it to him last summer so we sold him because it was best for both his development and our finances.
This is also presumably part of the Duran issue.
Post by: algy on June 26, 2024, 09:23:37 AM
The point I’m failing to make is this juggling PSR rules means we have to buy and sell players for reasons other than their ability.It is an absolutely bizarre situation that to be "sustainable" clubs are encouraged to sell off players that have cost them nothing/a very low fee and replace them with ones that they've bought from some other club's academy.
In an ideal world I don’t think we’d want to sign both Illing Jnr AND Dobbin (or sell Kellyman), so whilst we have got ourselves out of a hole we don’t want it to be an integral part of our transfer strategy.
Also, thanks to Emery, we are trading in a rising market, with players values increasing. Imagine having a bad season and falling prices. then we are at risk having to sell our best players at low prices.
I think in some regards the Iroegbunham-Dobbin swap makes sense anyway. Iroegbunham wasn't going to get a game for us, that much was clear at the end of last season when Emery still wasn't playing him despite the rest of the squad being dead on their feet. Dobbin feels like he'd be a handy player to have on the bench to me - a player who can play across the front 3, and I think as someone else had said I could see him being brought in to play understudy to Ollie. Seems a perfectly reasonable move from our point of view. But it doesn't make the whole situation any less strange.
Also, as Paulie mentioned - whilst I'm not sure that it makes an awful lot of sense logically, you can't really argue with the fact that our academy has produced £40m from 2 players who weren't even an integral part of the team. And that's before you start thinking about A.Ramz, Cam Archer, Finn Azaz and soforth. It must've made us £60m in the past couple of seasons. We're probably better off selling every player coming through the academy regardless of how good they are, and spending the proceeds on buying a £60m that fits our exact need every couple of seasons.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 26, 2024, 09:27:01 AM
Post by: Smithy on June 26, 2024, 09:48:24 AM
The point I’m failing to make is this juggling PSR rules means we have to buy and sell players for reasons other than their ability.It is an absolutely bizarre situation that to be "sustainable" clubs are encouraged to sell off players that have cost them nothing/a very low fee and replace them with ones that they've bought from some other club's academy.
In an ideal world I don’t think we’d want to sign both Illing Jnr AND Dobbin (or sell Kellyman), so whilst we have got ourselves out of a hole we don’t want it to be an integral part of our transfer strategy.
Also, thanks to Emery, we are trading in a rising market, with players values increasing. Imagine having a bad season and falling prices. then we are at risk having to sell our best players at low prices.
I think in some regards the Iroegbunham-Dobbin swap makes sense anyway. Iroegbunham wasn't going to get a game for us, that much was clear at the end of last season when Emery still wasn't playing him despite the rest of the squad being dead on their feet. Dobbin feels like he'd be a handy player to have on the bench to me - a player who can play across the front 3, and I think as someone else had said I could see him being brought in to play understudy to Ollie. Seems a perfectly reasonable move from our point of view. But it doesn't make the whole situation any less strange.
Also, as Paulie mentioned - whilst I'm not sure that it makes an awful lot of sense logically, you can't really argue with the fact that our academy has produced £40m from 2 players who weren't even an integral part of the team. And that's before you start thinking about A.Ramz, Cam Archer, Finn Azaz and soforth. It must've made us £60m in the past couple of seasons. We're probably better off selling every player coming through the academy regardless of how good they are, and spending the proceeds on buying a £60m that fits our exact need every couple of seasons.
Every club sells youth products for a profit, even the very, very wealthy ones. We are not unique in that. See Cole Palmer last summer (and all the other youngsters they've sold on over recent years). The fact is we RELY on it more than they do - at the moment - because we don't yet have the commercial operation of a top 6 side. That will come if Unai keeps us challenging at the top end. And when we do, youth sales will become less important, but they'll still happen - because making £20m+ a year profit from your academy is like having another major sponsor.
We perform well above average in developing players; in the last two seasons we've sold almost £100m worth of youth players (assuming the Kellyman deal goes through), with Chuck Jnr, Archer, Ramsey Jnr, Philogene, Azaz, Iroegbunam, and Kellyman. Go back another year and Grealish is included and takes that figure to £200m.
Let's be very clear, without that revenue, we don't have the players in our first team that got us into the Champions League, either because we couldn't afford to buy them in the first place, or we couldn't afford to keep them.
I hate selling promising youth prospects without giving them the chance to establish themselves with us, but I also recognise that without doing it, we wouldn't have the resources we need to develop a top four firs team.
Until the FFP rules change, I don't see that changing.
Post by: Drummond on June 26, 2024, 09:52:51 AM
Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.
Post by: Risso on June 26, 2024, 10:07:51 AM
Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.
Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.
Arsenal would probably argue that with Saka, Martinelli, Saliba and Smith-Rowe in the team, their academy is working really well.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 26, 2024, 10:39:02 AM
I think too much is being made of all this in the media. There is no way we are buying players just because it helps us and Everton.I'm not sure I agree. Whilst I think our sale prices are absolutely defendable, I don't think we would have bought Dobbin at all, let alone at that price if it wasn't a simple quid pro quo with Everton. I think Tim is the better prospect, but would have expected us to sell this summer anyway because of FFP. I strongly suspect taking Dobbin was the price we paid to get the deal through.
I am sure we wouldn’t have bought Dobbin if we didn’t rate him. There is, though, a system of financial controls in place that forces clubs ton constantly be vigilant on their three year net spend and a result of that is that there are market distortions - like selling home grown players being particularly good for PSR numbers. It has become another element in assessing signings, yes, but not in itself a standalone reason for signing someone.
Post by: LeeB on June 26, 2024, 10:41:52 AM
I think too much is being made of all this in the media. There is no way we are buying players just because it helps us and Everton.I'm not sure I agree. Whilst I think our sale prices are absolutely defendable, I don't think we would have bought Dobbin at all, let alone at that price if it wasn't a simple quid pro quo with Everton. I think Tim is the better prospect, but would have expected us to sell this summer anyway because of FFP. I strongly suspect taking Dobbin was the price we paid to get the deal through.
I am sure we wouldn’t have bought Dobbin if we didn’t rate him. There is, though, a system of financial controls in place that forces clubs ton constantly be vigilant on their three year net spend and a result of that is that there are market distortions - like selling home grown players being particularly good for PSR numbers. It has become another element in assessing signings, yes, but not in itself a standalone reason for signing someone.
I know its been hot but don't be daft.
Post by: chrisw1 on June 26, 2024, 10:43:47 AM
Post by: Dave on June 26, 2024, 10:46:12 AM
Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.
Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.
Arsenal would probably argue that with Saka, Martinelli, Saliba and Smith-Rowe in the team, their academy is working really well.
I agree with your overall point - but I think counting Saliba is a stretch. He cost them £30m as a first-team player at St Etienne and barely set foot in Arsenal's academy.
Post by: LeeS on June 26, 2024, 11:24:41 AM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 26, 2024, 12:32:29 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 26, 2024, 12:41:53 PM
Quote from: John Townley
BirminghamLive understands Douglas Luiz's €50m move to Juventus is the deal which puts Villa in the clear regarding PSR.
So any thoughts that they are simply flogging the likes of Tim Iroegbunam and Omari Kellyman to avoid a possible points deduction for breaking rules are wide of the mark.
And with the club's fears over PSR thus alleviated, any other transfer activity will simply be based on footballing requirements rather than financial, even though selling an academy player for pure profit, such as Kellyman, is obviously going to bolster any balance sheet.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 26, 2024, 12:42:49 PM
Post by: Risso on June 26, 2024, 01:03:41 PM
Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.
Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.
Arsenal would probably argue that with Saka, Martinelli, Saliba and Smith-Rowe in the team, their academy is working really well.
I agree with your overall point - but I think counting Saliba is a stretch. He cost them £30m as a first-team player at St Etienne and barely set foot in Arsenal's academy.
Yes I know, but he's similar in a way to how we're going about things, Buying up promising 17 and 18 year olds, loaning them out, and then selling them on. Only he's very good, so he's playing in their first team instead of being sold. Iroegbunam hasn't spent all that long in our academy either, to be honest.
Post by: Dave on June 26, 2024, 01:30:23 PM
Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.
Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.
Arsenal would probably argue that with Saka, Martinelli, Saliba and Smith-Rowe in the team, their academy is working really well.
I agree with your overall point - but I think counting Saliba is a stretch. He cost them £30m as a first-team player at St Etienne and barely set foot in Arsenal's academy.
Yes I know, but he's similar in a way to how we're going about things, Buying up promising 17 and 18 year olds, loaning them out, and then selling them on. Only he's very good, so he's playing in their first team instead of being sold. Iroegbunam hasn't spent all that long in our academy either, to be honest.
I know, but we bought him from West Brom's academy to develop in our academy instead. Arsenal bought Saliba from St Etienne's first team with a view to him being in their first-team squad. It's more akin to us buying Duran at a similar age from Chicago Fire's first team squad to be in our first team squad - he wouldn't be held up as evidence of our academy doing well.
Like I say, no disagreement with your point - he just stuck out in the list a bit, is all.
Post by: paul_e on June 26, 2024, 01:34:27 PM
Post by: Dave on June 26, 2024, 01:44:38 PM
Post by: UK Redsox on June 26, 2024, 02:19:22 PM
However, the other sales would still help with the ongoing three year rolling compliance period going forward
Post by: sid1964 on June 27, 2024, 07:18:40 AM
Just noticed on you tube a video, claiming that we are not clear of PSR for this season and we may have a points deduction - not sure if this is true or just click bait??
Post by: dekko on June 27, 2024, 02:37:32 PM
Post by: OCD on June 27, 2024, 02:50:07 PM
Post by: lovejoy on June 27, 2024, 02:50:34 PM
Post by: OCD on June 27, 2024, 02:57:50 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 27, 2024, 03:32:29 PM
I would imagine that due to the rolling 3 year compliance, we will need to sell another big hitter next summer to comply with PSR.
Just noticed on you tube a video, claiming that we are not clear of PSR for this season and we may have a points deduction - not sure if this is true or just click bait??
That John Townley bloke from the Birmingham Mail reckons the youngsters being sold have nothing to do with *the June PSR deadline because the Douglas Luiz deal covers that problem...
Quote from: John Townley
BirminghamLive understands Douglas Luiz's €50m move to Juventus is the deal which puts Villa in the clear regarding PSR.
So any thoughts that they are simply flogging the likes of Tim Iroegbunam and Omari Kellyman to avoid a possible points deduction for breaking rules are wide of the mark.
And with the club's fears over PSR thus alleviated, any other transfer activity will simply be based on footballing requirements rather than financial, even though selling an academy player for pure profit, such as Kellyman, is obviously going to bolster any balance sheet.
*edited for clarity
Post by: Dogtanian on June 27, 2024, 03:39:53 PM
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 27, 2024, 03:53:11 PM
I think its safe to say that the comings & goings recently will have an eye on future PSR problems...
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 27, 2024, 03:57:26 PM
Well that’s not strictly true, any transfer has an impact on PSR.I would imagine that due to the rolling 3 year compliance, we will need to sell another big hitter next summer to comply with PSR.
Just noticed on you tube a video, claiming that we are not clear of PSR for this season and we may have a points deduction - not sure if this is true or just click bait??
That John Townley bloke from the Birmingham Mail reckons the youngsters being sold have nothing to do with PSR because the Douglas Luiz deal covers that problem...Quote from: John TownleyBirminghamLive understands Douglas Luiz's €50m move to Juventus is the deal which puts Villa in the clear regarding PSR.
So any thoughts that they are simply flogging the likes of Tim Iroegbunam and Omari Kellyman to avoid a possible points deduction for breaking rules are wide of the mark.
And with the club's fears over PSR thus alleviated, any other transfer activity will simply be based on footballing requirements rather than financial, even though selling an academy player for pure profit, such as Kellyman, is obviously going to bolster any balance sheet.
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 27, 2024, 04:00:04 PM
The alleged June PSR deadline...
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 28, 2024, 02:04:19 AM
Come at us, bruh.
Post by: LeonW on June 28, 2024, 04:13:05 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4nge0l7e1po
Come at us, bruh.
That article (and some of the general media coverage) is bullsh*t. But the difference now is that we’re now a player. We can expect more of this and on other things to come.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 28, 2024, 04:54:03 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4nge0l7e1po
Come at us, bruh.
It’s exactly what we’ve all been saying. The only possible wrongdoing is fee inflation, and all of the fees are easily justified looking at historical transactions.
The bit warning clubs about their wider legal and regulatory obligations is a joke, as there certainly isn’t anything wrong with these deals on that front either.
Post by: Ads on June 28, 2024, 09:47:34 AM
Post by: Risso on June 28, 2024, 09:51:29 AM
Post by: sid1964 on June 28, 2024, 10:04:53 AM
The premier league do not like it because they did not think that clubs would do or think of doing this.
Post by: Ads on June 28, 2024, 10:09:58 AM
Post by: Chris Harte on June 28, 2024, 10:10:50 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4nge0l7e1poFrom that article:
Come at us, bruh.
"There is no suggestion that any of the clubs involved have breached any rules".
The point at which the whole article vanishes into a black hole.
It love that we are giving the middle finger to the FA. I love the salty comments from other club's fans (yes Manyoo, I mean you).
I bet the FA try to close this loophole way before they deal with Citeh.
Post by: AV82EC on June 28, 2024, 10:18:25 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 28, 2024, 10:23:56 AM
I see BBC Sport have produced this article which tbh could have been written word for word by the Manchester United Press Office. The fact BBC Sport office is less than 1km walk from the Manchester United Press Office is of course entirely coincidental.
Although nice of them to take time off from making puff pieces about Tax Free Chemical Jim's minority shareholding revolution.
Post by: Risso on June 28, 2024, 10:27:36 AM
I bet the FA try to close this loophole way before they deal with Citeh.
How would they do that? We've bought some players, and sold some players. None of the fees involved are unfair when compared against other similar transactions..
Post by: OCD on June 28, 2024, 11:03:56 AM
Post by: Chris Harte on June 28, 2024, 11:07:11 AM
I bet the FA try to close this loophole way before they deal with Citeh.
How would they do that? We've bought some players, and sold some players. None of the fees involved are unfair when compared against other similar transactions..
You could exclude academy players from the PSR calculation but PSR is changing from next year anyway.There you go.
Post by: Ads on June 28, 2024, 11:12:22 AM
I bet the FA try to close this loophole way before they deal with Citeh.
How would they do that? We've bought some players, and sold some players. None of the fees involved are unfair when compared against other similar transactions..
Yeah it's laughable. We've sold the wrong player to the wrong club. We'll end up even stronger than last year and well, that's just not fair!
Post by: Dave on June 28, 2024, 11:24:39 AM
Rhian Brewster - £24m four years ago. Piss off Premier League.
Romeo Lavia, 18 years old, 0 first team appearances, Man City - Southampton for £15m
Romeo Lavia, 19 years old, 29 appearances while getting relegated, Southampton - Chelsea for £53m.
Yes, Everton paying us £9m for Iroegbuman is definitely the weird one.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 28, 2024, 11:27:27 AM
You could exclude academy players from the PSR calculation but PSR is changing from next year anyway.
Hopefully, we just get Manchester United to decide what the new rules should be as they, clearly, have the interests of football at heart.
Post by: OCD on June 28, 2024, 11:30:16 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 28, 2024, 11:31:56 AM
Post by: Ads on June 28, 2024, 11:34:09 AM
Post by: OCD on June 28, 2024, 11:40:32 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 28, 2024, 11:56:54 AM
Good on them.
Maybe some of these so called bigger clubs that have spent years stringing out deals, tapping up players and low balling clubs (hello Totteringhams) are getting their comeuppence.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 28, 2024, 12:56:41 PM
One of the most sustainable ways to operate a club is to focus on developing good young players and then sell them on at a profit which you can then reinvest in your squad.
Why would we want to take that out of the game?
It would make the whole league poorer and is basically a big 'f*** you' to any club with ambitions to improve without massive sugar daddy funding.
Post by: Risso on June 28, 2024, 01:06:15 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 28, 2024, 01:49:44 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
Post by: LeonW on June 28, 2024, 03:44:11 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 28, 2024, 04:06:31 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 28, 2024, 04:11:03 PM
Post by: Mister E on June 28, 2024, 04:16:40 PM
I see West Ham and Southampton are doing a swap with Flynn Downes - Kyle Walker-Peters.I'd have both of those players at the Villa ...
Good on them.
Maybe some of these so called bigger clubs that have spent years stringing out deals, tapping up players and low balling clubs (hello Totteringhams) are getting their comeuppence.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on June 28, 2024, 04:18:26 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.
Post by: Risso on June 28, 2024, 04:20:02 PM
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
Post by: LeonW on June 28, 2024, 04:26:45 PM
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
No, they wouldn’t comment of the fairness of a fee. But my point and focus is on whether the fee is paid. Chelsea or Villa wouldn’t agree to and pay more for players to beat a system. They will be paying for and on the hook for that fee which is why the arguments put forward are nonsense.
Post by: LeonW on June 28, 2024, 04:36:56 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.
I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 28, 2024, 04:47:53 PM
How long have you been working for PWC?More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
No, they wouldn’t comment of the fairness of a fee. But my point and focus is on whether the fee is paid. Chelsea or Villa wouldn’t agree to and pay more for players to beat a system. They will be paying for and on the hook for that fee which is why the arguments put forward are nonsense.
Post by: LeonW on June 28, 2024, 04:55:02 PM
How long have you been working for PWC?More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
No, they wouldn’t comment of the fairness of a fee. But my point and focus is on whether the fee is paid. Chelsea or Villa wouldn’t agree to and pay more for players to beat a system. They will be paying for and on the hook for that fee which is why the arguments put forward are nonsense.
Are they only auditing company recognized for auditing football finance?
Post by: OCD on June 28, 2024, 05:03:41 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.
I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmetgates/2021/11/27/juventus-being-under-investigation-by-italys-financial-police-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one/
or
https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-the-swap-deal-involving-miralem-pjanic-and-arthur-melo-was-illegal-20211119
Post by: LeeB on June 28, 2024, 05:06:35 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.
I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmetgates/2021/11/27/juventus-being-under-investigation-by-italys-financial-police-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one/
or
https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-the-swap-deal-involving-miralem-pjanic-and-arthur-melo-was-illegal-20211119
They were crazy inflations, and both players did absolutely jack shit afterwards.
Post by: LeonW on June 28, 2024, 05:12:21 PM
The Premier League could be creating all sorts of shit for themselves if they pursue this beyond a letter reminding clubs of their responsibilities. They'd then have to go back and review every single transfer for the last ten plus years. Cole Palmer obviously had a great season at Chelsea, but prior to that he was a promising youth team player with a handful of first team appearances, but still went for £40m. Iroegbunam has a dozen appearances as a well, and has played for the various ages of England youth team players, and went for £9m.Its just posturing, they know and everybody else knows that there is nothing they can do about it.
I think the PL is trying to warn clubs not to abuse the process.
More than that; because the accounts are audited, if a club agrees to pay a fee for a player, they have to pay that fee, so why would a club agree to pay more for a player then they value them at or are prepared to for them. It will show in the books. This is why it’s nonsense. And the PL ‘writing to remind’ is just horsesh*t and clearly acting under the instructions of some. It’s not as though this has been discussed at a meeting.
While I agree with the sentiment, what Juventus got done for a couple of years ago is exactly why there should be some semblence of control. However, nothing I see here or with other clubs looks remotely iffy.
I can’t remember too much of that. What happened again?
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmetgates/2021/11/27/juventus-being-under-investigation-by-italys-financial-police-should-come-as-a-surprise-to-no-one/
or
https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-the-swap-deal-involving-miralem-pjanic-and-arthur-melo-was-illegal-20211119
Thank you. I see your point.
Post by: Beard82 on June 28, 2024, 06:42:17 PM
The rules are stupid and meaningless as Man City has managed to avoid any kind of conclusion to their charges. The rules are clearly anti-competitive and stop investment.
I don't see how anyone can claim any of these transfer fees are incorrect - as there are dozens of examples of similar fees for similar players. The PL has lost all control of the PFA rules and needs to find a solution as these rules are meaningless with city charges remaining o/s. These attempts to warn people against "managing" within the rules by structuring deals most advantageously is just ridiculous. When you make football an accountancy exercise, accountants will do accountancy things.
I don't like what we're doing - but what choice do we have? We haven't overspent - we have gone from the Championship to the Champions League in 5 years and rebuilt a complete squad.
Post by: eye digress on June 28, 2024, 08:04:50 PM
Not sure I agree. The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
They would also inspect the audit trail of any sale or purchase transactions during the period. If they suspect that transactions occurred at unreasonably inflated prices, they would be expected to at least draw the attention of users of the financial statements to that conclusion in their report.
For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong.
All of this is moot, however, for several reasons.
First, it's hard to imagine that the auditors were not sounded out by management for any potential objections beforehand.
Second, the fees are not a million miles away from others in the recent past (Chuck is always the good example).
Third, there is I believe an argument to say that FFP has changed the market and pushed up the price of young players anyway. There are, after all, willing buyers and we all agree that youth products are "gold" in this new system, i.e., relatively more valuable than amortisable players.
Lastly, there is a caveat. The ultimate arbitration lies with the PL, which is not held to accounting standards, of course.
But could the PL reasonably, legally, object to valuations considered acceptable under accounting standards? That would be explosive indeed.
Post by: eamonn on June 29, 2024, 12:35:11 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 29, 2024, 01:11:09 PM
That really is not the job of an Auditor and I think you are arguing with a Chartered Accountant.Not sure I agree. The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
They would also inspect the audit trail of any sale or purchase transactions during the period. If they suspect that transactions occurred at unreasonably inflated prices, they would be expected to at least draw the attention of users of the financial statements to that conclusion in their report.
For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong.
All of this is moot, however, for several reasons.
First, it's hard to imagine that the auditors were not sounded out by management for any potential objections beforehand.
Second, the fees are not a million miles away from others in the recent past (Chuck is always the good example).
Third, there is I believe an argument to say that FFP has changed the market and pushed up the price of young players anyway. There are, after all, willing buyers and we all agree that youth products are "gold" in this new system, i.e., relatively more valuable than amortisable players.
Lastly, there is a caveat. The ultimate arbitration lies with the PL, which is not held to accounting standards, of course.
But could the PL reasonably, legally, object to valuations considered acceptable under accounting standards? That would be explosive indeed.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 29, 2024, 01:14:49 PM
https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46
Post by: pablo_picasso on June 29, 2024, 01:19:15 PM
Jim Radcliffe of Man U summarizing why the rules need to favour the top 6 clubs
https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46
What a monumental c***.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 29, 2024, 01:24:15 PM
Post by: Goldenballs on June 29, 2024, 01:28:04 PM
Post by: garyellis on June 29, 2024, 01:34:22 PM
Get your own club in order and don’t expect any special favours as a mid table Premier league club.
Post by: Chris Harte on June 29, 2024, 02:39:56 PM
Jim Radcliffe of Man U summarizing why the rules need to favour the top 6 clubsThat is jaw-droppingly arrogant of him to state that the top six clubs shouldn't be disadvantaged.
https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46
And while you're at it, if you want a new stadium put your hands in your own pockets. Tight bastard.
Post by: Paul.S on June 29, 2024, 02:47:03 PM
I maybe wrong but I don’t think he’s used to not getting what he wants but he’ll have to get used to it.
Post by: eye digress on June 29, 2024, 02:50:36 PM
[…] and I think you are arguing with a Chartered Accountant.That is as may be.
Post by: Scratchins on June 29, 2024, 02:59:03 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 29, 2024, 02:59:48 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 29, 2024, 03:05:21 PM
Post by: OCD on June 29, 2024, 03:11:31 PM
Radcliffe is still aiming to win the 'Premiership'
He's a twat just for referring to it as The Premiership. That alone shows how out of touch he is.
Post by: algy on June 29, 2024, 10:06:42 PM
Jim Radcliffe of Man U summarizing why the rules need to favour the top 6 clubsI think it's fair enough and says a lot about the man's integrity. It's great that he thinks the rules should work in our favour (finished 4th) rather than Manchester United's (finished 8th, so by definition not a top 6 club).
https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46
Good on him.
Post by: eamonn on June 29, 2024, 11:11:48 PM
Radcliffe is still aiming to win the 'Premiership'
It triggers Dave (Bath) no end, Radcliffe will be top of the irritants list now 😉
Post by: lovejoy on June 30, 2024, 01:03:14 AM
The auditors are there to opine on whether the accounts as a whole are free from material misstatement not whether soecic transactions pass the sniff test.That really is not the job of an Auditor and I think you are arguing with a Chartered Accountant.Not sure I agree. The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
They would also inspect the audit trail of any sale or purchase transactions during the period. If they suspect that transactions occurred at unreasonably inflated prices, they would be expected to at least draw the attention of users of the financial statements to that conclusion in their report.
For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong.
All of this is moot, however, for several reasons.
First, it's hard to imagine that the auditors were not sounded out by management for any potential objections beforehand.
Second, the fees are not a million miles away from others in the recent past (Chuck is always the good example).
Third, there is I believe an argument to say that FFP has changed the market and pushed up the price of young players anyway. There are, after all, willing buyers and we all agree that youth products are "gold" in this new system, i.e., relatively more valuable than amortisable players.
Lastly, there is a caveat. The ultimate arbitration lies with the PL, which is not held to accounting standards, of course.
But could the PL reasonably, legally, object to valuations considered acceptable under accounting standards? That would be explosive indeed.
Post by: Mister E on June 30, 2024, 06:36:49 AM
Hmmm. This valuation job ain't easy, is it?!!
Post by: thick_mike on June 30, 2024, 06:45:21 AM
Newcastle value Minteh (yeah, who???) at £33m. He was purchased just 12 months' ago for £6.5m and has played no Premier League football.
Hmmm. This valuation job ain't easy, is it?!!
Bloody Hell, you’re right. He hasn’t made an appearance since 2010!
(https://i.ibb.co/DgB5xB7/IMG-0493.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DgB5xB7)
Post by: jwarry on June 30, 2024, 08:00:52 AM
Jim Radcliffe of Man U summarizing why the rules need to favour the top 6 clubs
https://x.com/caseysean51/status/1806980899591840060?s=46
That is astonishing and needs widespread air play so even more people can hate the cheating fuckers
Post by: eamonn on June 30, 2024, 09:50:54 AM
Post by: LeeB on June 30, 2024, 09:54:51 AM
There was a thread on here years back speculating on who H&V posters might look like. For some reason, the best laugh for me was Olof's Beard reckoning that Mark Fletcher (H&V comic of the year 2005-2010) probably looked like Minty from Eastenders.
Yeah but my guess at Sexual Ealing was closest to reality.
Post by: Risso on June 30, 2024, 09:55:33 AM
There was a thread on here years back speculating on who H&V posters might look like. For some reason, the best laugh for me was Olof's Beard reckoning that Mark Fletcher (H&V comic of the year 2005-2010) probably looked like Minty from Eastenders.
Yeah but my guess at Sexual Ealing was closest to reality.
Minty from Eastenders?
Post by: LeeB on June 30, 2024, 10:06:13 AM
There was a thread on here years back speculating on who H&V posters might look like. For some reason, the best laugh for me was Olof's Beard reckoning that Mark Fletcher (H&V comic of the year 2005-2010) probably looked like Minty from Eastenders.
Yeah but my guess at Sexual Ealing was closest to reality.
Minty from Eastenders?
Adrian Chile.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 30, 2024, 10:15:57 AM
Adrian Chiles.
I didn't know SE wore glasses.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/2024/02/06/17/da669707f7220e2a8ba60b27f6c006ccY29udGVudHNlYXJjaGFwaSwxNzA3MzI2Njc2-2.75260703.jpg?)
Post by: Risso on June 30, 2024, 10:26:55 AM
Not sure I agree. The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs.
All an audit would show is the price paid for a player, and that that figure is paid. It wouldn't be an auditors job to conclude whether the price was paid was fair or not. How would somebody from PwC conclude whether Iroegbunam was worth £1m or £9m?
They would also inspect the audit trail of any sale or purchase transactions during the period. If they suspect that transactions occurred at unreasonably inflated prices, they would be expected to at least draw the attention of users of the financial statements to that conclusion in their report.
For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong.
All of this is moot, however, for several reasons.
First, it's hard to imagine that the auditors were not sounded out by management for any potential objections beforehand.
Second, the fees are not a million miles away from others in the recent past (Chuck is always the good example).
Third, there is I believe an argument to say that FFP has changed the market and pushed up the price of young players anyway. There are, after all, willing buyers and we all agree that youth products are "gold" in this new system, i.e., relatively more valuable than amortisable players.
Lastly, there is a caveat. The ultimate arbitration lies with the PL, which is not held to accounting standards, of course.
But could the PL reasonably, legally, object to valuations considered acceptable under accounting standards? That would be explosive indeed.
Completely wrong I'm afraid. Grab any set of accounts you like and look at the notes which describe the accounting policies. Acquisition of intangible assets, ie the purchase of players' registrations, are recorded at cost and then amortised over the length of those contracts. The only thing that will ever materially affect the carrying value is the signing of a new contract which means that the remaining unamortised value is spread over the new, extended term.
"The auditors would be required to gain an understanding of how assets (financial, tangible or intangible) on the books are measured by management. They would do this by reference to models containing historical market data along with other inputs." No, they don't do this, they're measured at cost as I've already said.
Firstly, there's absolutely no way this could work in reality. Secondly, it's not the auditor's job to do this. If the company had a building that had been revalued, then usual practice would be for the company to get a firm of Chartered Surveyors to give a report saying the valuation was reasonable. Look at the wildly differing values of youth players that have been sold in recent years. Cole Palmer went for £40m after starting three Premier League games. Sure he was excellent last year, but at the point of sale, there was no guarantee he'd do what he did, or that he'd be any better than say, Nmecha who Man City sold for £11m.
"For example, if we paid £10m for Dobbin but the auditors decided his value was one tenth of that because management's models were flawed, they would need to flag the assumptions used and the impact on the accounts in the event they were wrong." There is no "model", it's a simple purchase of an asset with a defined method of recognising that, ie cost.
How in your world, would you deal with a sale to a Saudi club, offering massively over what would be a "normal" fee?
Post by: Nev on June 30, 2024, 10:37:00 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2024, 11:18:59 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrhqwmRkJJo&pp=ygUXY2xhcmV0IGFuZCBibHVlIHBvZGNhc3Q%3D
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 30, 2024, 11:27:40 AM
There you go ^^^^^^^[…] and I think you are arguing with a Chartered Accountant.That is as may be.
Post by: Drummond on June 30, 2024, 11:56:02 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2024, 12:03:38 PM
Post by: Rigadon on June 30, 2024, 01:21:18 PM
Post by: OCD on June 30, 2024, 01:57:13 PM
Isn't the sale of football players like anything else, in that they're worth whatever some other club is willing to pay?
That's my belief. It's a free market.
Post by: The Man With A Stick on June 30, 2024, 02:08:08 PM
Jawdis getting £35m for Elliott Anderson validates anything that the Villa have done sales-wise, except maybe £42m for Dougie.
£35m? I'm not an avid watcher of games that don't feature us, but I don't even know who that is.
Post by: Ger Regan on June 30, 2024, 02:14:21 PM
Post by: Paul.S on June 30, 2024, 02:52:00 PM
I’ve heard this bloke three times now and always been impressed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrhqwmRkJJo&pp=ygUXY2xhcmV0IGFuZCBibHVlIHBvZGNhc3Q%3D
I’ve just listened to that and thought it was excellent.
Post by: OCD on June 30, 2024, 03:19:17 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2024, 03:44:04 PM
I’ve heard this bloke three times now and always been impressed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrhqwmRkJJo&pp=ygUXY2xhcmV0IGFuZCBibHVlIHBvZGNhc3Q%3D
I’ve just listened to that and thought it was excellent.
He’s much better than Maguire IMO.
Post by: jon collett on June 30, 2024, 09:28:39 PM
Looks like the deal was for the Douglas Luiz sale to be announced on the 30th June and for the Iling Junior/Barrenechea/Barkley deals to be announced 1st July.
Is that a bad sign?
As will that reduce our spending in the new financial year? Presumably out of necessity!
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 30, 2024, 09:35:39 PM
Looks like the deal was for the Douglas Luiz sale to be announced on the 30th June and for the Iling Junior/Barrenechea/Barkley deals to be announced 1st July.
Is that a bad sign?
As will that reduce our spending in the new financial year? Presumably out of necessity!
You can only guess that is the case. we will be carrying the costs for an extra year if posted after 30-June. Not big numbers but potentially restricts us two years time.
Post by: Beard82 on June 30, 2024, 09:38:27 PM
I would assume we have a plan We must have raised 70m so far this window? omai, tim and doughie? But my understanding is it wouldnt make a difference - as its over 3 years - so what we have to spend would be impacted the same whenever they are booked onLooks like the deal was for the Douglas Luiz sale to be announced on the 30th June and for the Iling Junior/Barrenechea/Barkley deals to be announced 1st July.
Is that a bad sign?
As will that reduce our spending in the new financial year? Presumably out of necessity!
Post by: Chris Smith on June 30, 2024, 09:44:19 PM
Looks like the deal was for the Douglas Luiz sale to be announced on the 30th June and for the Iling Junior/Barrenechea/Barkley deals to be announced 1st July.
Is that a bad sign?
As will that reduce our spending in the new financial year? Presumably out of necessity!
I was wondering if there any leeway with registering players due to the deadline being on a Sunday.
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 01, 2024, 05:56:31 AM
The sale of a player is credited in the year of the transaction for accounting and PSR purposes, purchases are amortised over the length of the contract.I would assume we have a plan We must have raised 70m so far this window? omai, tim and doughie? But my understanding is it wouldnt make a difference - as its over 3 years - so what we have to spend would be impacted the same whenever they are booked onLooks like the deal was for the Douglas Luiz sale to be announced on the 30th June and for the Iling Junior/Barrenechea/Barkley deals to be announced 1st July.
Is that a bad sign?
As will that reduce our spending in the new financial year? Presumably out of necessity!
Post by: Dogtanian on July 01, 2024, 07:00:16 AM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on July 01, 2024, 07:41:28 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on July 01, 2024, 09:04:33 AM
Post by: OCD on July 01, 2024, 10:46:20 AM
Post by: ozzjim on July 01, 2024, 11:48:29 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 02, 2024, 07:49:04 AM
It isn’t a loophole you divs.
Post by: ozzjim on July 02, 2024, 08:01:42 AM
Sky sports calling the selling of players to maximise PSR a loophole.
It isn’t a loophole you divs.
United and Spurs have told them too keep making the point.
Post by: Drummond on July 02, 2024, 08:03:11 AM
Post by: cdward on July 02, 2024, 09:22:55 AM
£42M for Luiz, Iling Jr £12M, Berrenchea £7M, when all the talk was around £60M for Luiz, and £20M each for the 2 players coming in.
I'm no accounting expert, but i reckon some deal was done to keep the figures relatively low between the 2 clubs.
Same as the deal with Everton for Tim and Dobbin.
As the saying goes, turnover is vanity, profit is sanity (and Matty Cash is reality).
Post by: Border villan on July 02, 2024, 09:25:32 AM
Interesting that the fees involved seem on the low side.
£42M for Luiz, Iling Jr £12M, Berrenchea £7M, when all the talk was around £60M for Luiz, and £20M each for the 2 players coming in.
I'm no accounting expert, but i reckon some deal was done to keep the figures relatively low between the 2 clubs.
Same as the deal with Everton for Tim and Dobbin.
As the saying goes, turnover is vanity, profit is sanity (and Matty Cash is reality).
The “low” fees will limit the sell on we have to pay the blue mancs.
Post by: ozzjim on July 02, 2024, 11:09:52 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on July 02, 2024, 11:15:31 AM
So... Where are we now for next summer do we think. There's some doghead on twitter that I've blocked that reckons we're £100m short next summer still, which I can't believe, but the Grealish profit summer drops off the 3 year cycle doesn't it.
Well, being as he won't have seen last seasons accounts, let alone next seasons, I'd suggest he's drunk on licking his own balls.
Post by: Clark W Griswold on July 02, 2024, 11:28:23 AM
So... Where are we now for next summer do we think. There's some doghead on twitter that I've blocked that reckons we're £100m short next summer still, which I can't believe, but the Grealish profit summer drops off the 3 year cycle doesn't it.
Well, being as he won't have seen last seasons accounts, let alone next seasons, I'd suggest he's drunk on licking his own balls.
I know from personal experience that most Wolves fans talk absolute shit when it comes to football and, well, anything else for that matter.
Post by: algy on July 02, 2024, 11:53:07 AM
So... Where are we now for next summer do we think. There's some doghead on twitter that I've blocked that reckons we're £100m short next summer still, which I can't believe, but the Grealish profit summer drops off the 3 year cycle doesn't it.Looking over the past 5 years, just transfers:
23/24 - €111m out, €32m in
22/23 - €100m out, €54m in
21/22 - €130m out, €127m in
20/21 - €101m out, €3m in
19/20 - €159m out, €3m in
So we've brought in €213m in transfer fees in the last 3 seasons, and spent €601m in the past 5. (Incoming transfer fees are taken over 3 seasons, outgoing transfer fees - players we've bought - over the length of the contract but we'll just assume any significant fees were spread over a 5 year contract).
Our spending time date has been within FFP limits so far as we know.
This coming season we lose the €127m from the Greasy sale season, and also the purchases from the season after we were promoted (€159m). So I'm my naive mind, as long as our commercial income has grown in proportion to the wages we've been paying out, we're going to be mildly better off next summer than this.
You can't work out any actual figures from that, especially as there's the assumption that every contract is spread out over 5 seasons, but I'd imagine it'd highlight situations when you're deeply fucked ... and I don't think we are from that.
Post by: Villan For Life on July 02, 2024, 12:17:21 PM
So... Where are we now for next summer do we think. There's some doghead on twitter that I've blocked that reckons we're £100m short next summer still, which I can't believe, but the Grealish profit summer drops off the 3 year cycle doesn't it.
A few things immediately spring to mind:
Overall increase in turnover due to Champions League revenue
Overall increase in turnover due to additional commercial revenue (Adidas deal, new sponsor, matchday ground changes)
Players that will leave between now and when the transfer window closes, potentially removing some high earners from the wage roll
Higher ticket prices
Wolves are Wolves and insanely jealous of the Villa
Post by: Dave P on July 02, 2024, 12:20:17 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on July 02, 2024, 12:24:13 PM
Post by: Bad English on July 02, 2024, 12:25:57 PM
There's some doghead on twitter... that reckonsI'm having a dump and trying to use the time profitably and now this.
Post by: paul_e on July 02, 2024, 12:40:04 PM
That Swiss Ramble site was pretty close to the nub wasn't it, it said we needed to sell £60m odd worth of players and we did, despite the 'what would they know' questions posed.
but other reports were that the Luiz deal alone was enough.
It's all guessworkbut the swiss ramble one at least made a decent effort to explain why they were guessing the way they were. We'll see when the accounts come out but I wouldn't be surprised f we see a profit of £20-30m given the huge drop in 'exceptional' items relating to sacking and replacing managers/coaches and the extra income from Europe and a higher league finish.
Post by: Dogtanian on July 02, 2024, 01:00:49 PM
Considering we lost £120m in 2022-23, the question was how much of that was exceptional as Paul says, how much is then covered by the £50m revenue increase as per Big Heck, and how much we’d then need to cover from sales.
Post by: The Edge on July 04, 2024, 10:05:45 AM
Post by: Risso on July 04, 2024, 10:06:15 AM
Post by: Mister E on July 04, 2024, 10:38:13 AM
There is an excellent article in Birmingham Live today (I know I was surprised too) written by John Townley explaining our position regarding our financial situation and how Chris Heck must go about raising our revenue streams to compete at the top level.Can you post the contents here, pls.
Post by: eamonn on July 04, 2024, 11:04:37 AM
John Townley is on the whole, very good.
After a shaky start, the boy is challenging his rival and initial-matching compadre, Jacob Tanswell. The future's bright with this young Villa blood we're bringing through. Let's hope we don't sell them off to the...Stoke Sentinel or Norfolk Gazzette just to help with PSR.
Post by: The Edge on July 04, 2024, 01:40:04 PM
I'll give it a goThere is an excellent article in Birmingham Live today (I know I was surprised too) written by John Townley explaining our position regarding our financial situation and how Chris Heck must go about raising our revenue streams to compete at the top level.Can you post the contents here, pls.
Post by: The Edge on July 04, 2024, 01:46:21 PM
Tried unsuccessfully but if you type in John Townley Birmingham Live the story is there. It references V Sports.I'll give it a goThere is an excellent article in Birmingham Live today (I know I was surprised too) written by John Townley explaining our position regarding our financial situation and how Chris Heck must go about raising our revenue streams to compete at the top level.Can you post the contents here, pls.
Post by: KNVillan on July 04, 2024, 01:53:22 PM
https://archive.ph/J9rp2
Post by: pablo_picasso on July 04, 2024, 03:30:34 PM
John Townley is on the whole, very good.
Yeah, he is pretty much the only decent "journalist" about...
Post by: Villatillidie25 on July 04, 2024, 05:01:08 PM
I think this the article The Edge is on about
https://archive.ph/J9rp2
is there a different PSR limit (€90m) for UEFA, rather than £105m for the Premier League?
Post by: Pat Mustard on July 04, 2024, 05:06:59 PM
Post by: AV84 on July 04, 2024, 05:19:40 PM
I see Arsenal only signed David Raya today for £27 million, despite the fact he has been playing for them for the last year. Are their fans going to be crying about this one, how it's all unfair manipulation of the rules?
It was a loan, so probably not.
Post by: The Edge on July 04, 2024, 05:49:59 PM
I think this the article The Edge is on aboutThanks KNV. Yes the one I read this morning is there under Top Stories. Number 5 the 400 million pound chase which involves V Sports group. It explained things in a way I understood lol.
https://archive.ph/J9rp2
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 04, 2024, 05:59:36 PM
John Townley is on the whole, very good.
Yeah, he is pretty much the only decent "journalist" about...
That's a bit unfair.
It's a bit tough for us to point out the shit ones with glee, yet not recognise the good ones.
Tanswell. Percy. Ornstein. There's three really good ones. Henry Winter. Even Matt Law. Decent.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 04, 2024, 06:03:48 PM
John Townley is on the whole, very good.
Yeah, he is pretty much the only decent "journalist" about...
That's a bit unfair.
It's a bit tough for us to point out the shit ones with glee, yet not recognise the good ones.
Tanswell. Percy. Ornstein. There's three really good ones. Henry Winter. Even Matt Law. Decent.
I really enjoy Tanswell’s stuff.
Post by: Dogtanian on July 04, 2024, 06:09:00 PM
Post by: Pat Mustard on July 04, 2024, 06:15:33 PM
I see Arsenal only signed David Raya today for £27 million, despite the fact he has been playing for them for the last year. Are their fans going to be crying about this one, how it's all unfair manipulation of the rules?
It was a loan, so probably not.
Yeah, but it was a loan because they couldn’t afford to sign him permanently last season, and Brentford agreed to it because it suited them to kick the fee forward a year. Arsenal then finished above us last season with a goalkeeper they couldn’t afford, yet somehow it’s the deals going on between us and Everton that need looking at.
Post by: AV84 on July 04, 2024, 06:29:42 PM
I see Arsenal only signed David Raya today for £27 million, despite the fact he has been playing for them for the last year. Are their fans going to be crying about this one, how it's all unfair manipulation of the rules?
It was a loan, so probably not.
Yeah, but it was a loan because they couldn’t afford to sign him permanently last season, and Brentford agreed to it because it suited them to kick the fee forward a year. Arsenal then finished above us last season with a goalkeeper they couldn’t afford, yet somehow it’s the deals going on between us and Everton that need looking at.
Fair point.
Post by: FatSam on July 04, 2024, 06:31:45 PM
Yeah, but why didn’t they buy him last month?I see Arsenal only signed David Raya today for £27 million, despite the fact he has been playing for them for the last year. Are their fans going to be crying about this one, how it's all unfair manipulation of the rules?
It was a loan, so probably not.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 04, 2024, 06:47:34 PM
Yeah, but why didn’t they buy him last month?I see Arsenal only signed David Raya today for £27 million, despite the fact he has been playing for them for the last year. Are their fans going to be crying about this one, how it's all unfair manipulation of the rules?
It was a loan, so probably not.
It is hardly manipulation though, is it?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on July 04, 2024, 07:38:20 PM
Quote
Leicester's appeal against the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability charge has been rejected by an independent commission.
The commission has ruled the top flight can punish the Foxes for an alleged breach for the three seasons leading up to 2022-23 after they were charged in March.
Leicester appealed against the charge as they were in the English Football League (EFL) at the time it was issued and felt the Premier League had no jurisdiction, having been relegated in 2023, but the commission has ruled English football's top flight can continue pursuing them.
Leicester are appealing against the latest ruling.
A statement said: “LCFC notes the publication today of the decision of the Premier League Commission. The Club is disappointed with the decision, which does not appear to reflect the wording of the Premier League’s Rules, and has lodged an appeal.”
The Premier League confirmed the appeal had been dismissed.
"An independent Commission has dismissed a challenge by Leicester City FC that it has no jurisdiction to consider an alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs)," a statement read.
Leicester, who returned to the Premier League at the first attempt by winning the Championship last season, were charged in March for an alleged breach of the Premier League's PSR rules.
At the time the club said they were "surprised" and "disappointed" by the timing of the Premier League's actions, while they were not in the top flight.
The club said they would "defend" themselves "from any unlawful acts by the football authorities, should they seek to exercise jurisdiction where they cannot do so".
Their latest accounts for the year ending 30 June, 2023 confirmed an £89.7m loss taking their total losses for their previous three Premier League campaigns to more than £215m.
The club will be able to claim 'add backs', such as money spent on football infrastructure, against that figure.
In the 12 months up to May 2022 they lost a club record £92.5m. A year earlier, in the season when they lifted the FA Cup for the first time, the club reported a pre-tax loss of £33.1m.
Top-flight rules allow clubs to make losses of £105m over a three-year period, or £35m per campaign, before facing sanctions.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on July 04, 2024, 08:11:42 PM
I assume most countries have similar rules and also clubs prone to spending beyond their means.
Post by: fredm on July 04, 2024, 08:18:39 PM
Post by: Pat Mustard on July 04, 2024, 08:19:20 PM
Yeah, but why didn’t they buy him last month?I see Arsenal only signed David Raya today for £27 million, despite the fact he has been playing for them for the last year. Are their fans going to be crying about this one, how it's all unfair manipulation of the rules?
It was a loan, so probably not.
It is hardly manipulation though, is it?
I’d say that’s exactly what it is - they got the benefit of a goalkeeper they couldn’t afford for a whole season, just because it suited Brentford to do the deal that way. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but it’s a bit of a pisstake that we are getting criticised for the way our deals are being structured when everyone is at it in different ways.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on July 04, 2024, 08:27:31 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on July 04, 2024, 10:31:25 PM
Arsenal have spent what, £90m on 3 keepers the last 5 years or so, thinking they were better than Emi?
And… were they? :P
Post by: Somniloquism on July 06, 2024, 06:54:15 PM
QuoteLeicester's appeal against the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability charge has been rejected by an independent commission.
"Our cheating in 2022 didn't work so we shouldn't be punished for it when we come back up."
Post by: Somniloquism on July 06, 2024, 06:56:20 PM
I see Man Utd have signed a three year deal for the front of the shirt at £75m per year.
£60 mil. The 75mil figure is in dollars. TBF though their front of shirt sponsors have always been high because of the world wide shirt sales even when they are shit. The previous sponsor was £47mil a year when TeamViewer were cashing in big during the pandemic. But now they can't afford that anymore.
Post by: Mellin on July 07, 2024, 09:56:54 AM
Arsenal have spent what, £90m on 3 keepers the last 5 years or so, thinking they were better than Emi?
Thanks for reminding me how funny it is Emi and Emery cost them the league, especially with the complete moron brain block they have over both of them.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 07, 2024, 01:57:17 PM
Check out this twat for a great example
https://x.com/oscar_tees/status/1809745780380438594?s=46&t=s4PUnd105bLdPWkz1Dmnlg
Post by: pablo_picasso on July 07, 2024, 02:23:35 PM
Arsenal fans are the worse thing on the internet
Check out this twat for a great example
https://x.com/oscar_tees/status/1809745780380438594?s=46&t=s4PUnd105bLdPWkz1Dmnlg
Is he talking about Villa?
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 07, 2024, 02:24:01 PM
John Townley is on the whole, very good.
Yeah, he is pretty much the only decent "journalist" about...
That's a bit unfair.
It's a bit tough for us to point out the shit ones with glee, yet not recognise the good ones.
Tanswell. Percy. Ornstein. There's three really good ones. Henry Winter. Even Matt Law. Decent.
Leon Hickman.
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 07, 2024, 02:34:28 PM
Arsenal fans got "#waitforarsenal" trending after we beat Man City, the arrogant pricks. Then they got "#prayforvilla" trending before the return encounter. It was delightful to beat the twats, twice. They haven't stopped crying about it since.
* in football terms, I mean. Obviously all the actual Nazis and those that solely post about how much they hate Trans people are much worse.
Post by: ADVILLAFAN on July 07, 2024, 10:29:33 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 08, 2024, 10:41:47 PM
A maximum of €28m spread over five years, absolute peanuts in terms of amortisation.
Quote
In confirming the departure of the two players, Juventus confirmed Iling-Junior’s transfer fee is €14m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”. The Serie A club also confirmed Barrenechea’s transfer fee is €8m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 08, 2024, 11:17:14 PM
Just read this about our Juventus signings. Those fees seem very low, which will help our FFP situation.
A maximum of €28m spread over five years, absolute peanuts in terms of amortisation.QuoteIn confirming the departure of the two players, Juventus confirmed Iling-Junior’s transfer fee is €14m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”. The Serie A club also confirmed Barrenechea’s transfer fee is €8m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”.
As I suggested when people were complaining about the low fee for Dougie, the multiple swap allowed us & Juve to nominate player values to suit both sets of accounts.
By the way, bonuses don’t count as part of amortisation costs.
Post by: purpletrousers on July 08, 2024, 11:42:50 PM
Just read this about our Juventus signings. Those fees seem very low, which will help our FFP situation.
A maximum of €28m spread over five years, absolute peanuts in terms of amortisation.QuoteIn confirming the departure of the two players, Juventus confirmed Iling-Junior’s transfer fee is €14m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”. The Serie A club also confirmed Barrenechea’s transfer fee is €8m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”.
As I suggested when people were complaining about the low fee for Dougie, the multiple swap allowed us & Juve to nominate player values to suit both sets of accounts.
By the way, bonuses don’t count as part of amortisation costs.
I'm trying to understand that about bonuses Percy. I'm presuming i'm misunderstanding, as that'd be vulnerable to much gaming the system, bonuses not needing to count across FFP, surely they could be set as very low/guaranteed bar?
Totally agree re: the DL transfer fees, add £20m on to his, £10m each on the Juve guys if it makes you feel better, we seem to be playing the sadly necessary financial game wisely.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 09, 2024, 12:01:17 AM
Just read this about our Juventus signings. Those fees seem very low, which will help our FFP situation.
A maximum of €28m spread over five years, absolute peanuts in terms of amortisation.QuoteIn confirming the departure of the two players, Juventus confirmed Iling-Junior’s transfer fee is €14m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”. The Serie A club also confirmed Barrenechea’s transfer fee is €8m “payable in four financial years, in addition to variable bonuses up to a maximum of €3m”.
As I suggested when people were complaining about the low fee for Dougie, the multiple swap allowed us & Juve to nominate player values to suit both sets of accounts.
By the way, bonuses don’t count as part of amortisation costs.
I'm trying to understand that about bonuses Percy. I'm presuming i'm misunderstanding, as that'd be vulnerable to much gaming the system, bonuses not needing to count across FFP, surely they could be set as very low/guaranteed bar?
Totally agree re: the DL transfer fees, add £20m on to his, £10m each on the Juve guys if it makes you feel better, we seem to be playing the sadly necessary financial game wisely.
I can’t claim to understand the thinking behind the bonus thing, unless it’s just there to help with clarity, but I’m guessing there.
All I know is the Reach business in sport writer (Dave Powell?) said it and he’s the most authoritative voice on FFP for me.
Post by: Dogtanian on July 09, 2024, 12:58:35 AM
It makes sense not to include a cost you may not pay on the asset value. But if you pay it, it goes in the accounts.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on July 09, 2024, 06:52:35 AM
The bonuses will go against FFP whether they’re amortised or not, because they’re still a cost to club.
It makes sense not to include a cost you may not pay on the asset value. But if you pay it, it goes in the accounts.
Presumably they won’t be part of the amortisation calculation but, if they’re incurred, they’ll be expensed immediately to the P&L? So while it’s likely good in the short term, it’s not a complete dodge.
Post by: lovejoy on July 09, 2024, 07:38:04 AM
Post by: Villatillidie25 on July 09, 2024, 09:35:43 AM
That’s how accounting works, bonuses will be recognised in the period(s) they are earned, so usually as an in the year cost and not spread like a transfer fee. Hopefully this is offset by any extra prize money a club would win.
Not really sure why I put the ? 🤣 (given I’m a qualified accountant) 🤣🤣
Post by: Dogtanian on July 09, 2024, 10:20:21 AM
That’s how accounting works, bonuses will be recognised in the period(s) they are earned, so usually as an in the year cost and not spread like a transfer fee. Hopefully this is offset by any extra prize money a club would win.
Not really sure why I put the ? 🤣 (given I’m a qualified accountant) 🤣🤣
Always cover your arse! ;D
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 09, 2024, 10:31:54 AM
That’s how accounting works, bonuses will be recognised in the period(s) they are earned, so usually as an in the year cost and not spread like a transfer fee. Hopefully this is offset by any extra prize money a club would win.
Not really sure why I put the ? 🤣 (given I’m a qualified accountant) 🤣🤣
The more accountancy chat the better, the muggles on here lap it up.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on July 09, 2024, 11:31:40 AM
That’s how accounting works, bonuses will be recognised in the period(s) they are earned, so usually as an in the year cost and not spread like a transfer fee. Hopefully this is offset by any extra prize money a club would win.
Not really sure why I put the ? 🤣 (given I’m a qualified accountant) 🤣🤣
The more accountancy chat the better, the muggles on here lap it up.
We could talk about double entries for a bit but that might take the “muggles” down a different path 🤣🤣
Post by: Dogtanian on July 09, 2024, 12:03:40 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 09, 2024, 12:06:07 PM
That’s how accounting works, bonuses will be recognised in the period(s) they are earned, so usually as an in the year cost and not spread like a transfer fee. Hopefully this is offset by any extra prize money a club would win.
Not really sure why I put the ? 🤣 (given I’m a qualified accountant) 🤣🤣
The more accountancy chat the better, the muggles on here lap it up.
We could talk about double entries for a bit but that might take the “muggles” down a different path 🤣🤣
Quite right too, we must maintain our standards.
Post by: paul_e on July 09, 2024, 12:12:29 PM
Imagine a £10m up-front but a further £10m after 15 and 25 appearances and something relating to a small number of goals or clean sheets. You could plan for something like a £50m package of which only £8m is still on the books by the next summer.
I can see that making sense if you signing an older player (with limited resale value) or if you were making signings like Bailey where you've just had a massive spike in income and you want to flatten out the impact of the 3 year cycle.
I wonder what the response to something like that would be from the Premier League, I guess it'd depend who did it.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on July 09, 2024, 07:35:27 PM
Post by: Goldenballs on July 11, 2024, 07:09:09 PM
Chelsea selling the women's team to themselves?
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 14, 2024, 09:11:34 AM
This could get interesting.
Post by: Villan82 on July 14, 2024, 10:15:04 AM
According to Bloomberg investors are reluctant to hand Clearwater Capital (Chelsea’s owners)more capital citing bad investment decisions and specifically the Chelsea acquisition.
This could get interesting.
*popcorn*
Post by: john2710 on July 14, 2024, 12:45:43 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 14, 2024, 02:22:41 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 18, 2024, 02:35:20 PM
Its about time this sort of thing happens with our club after the parsimony of Doug, the wastefulness of Lerner and the sheer shitness of Xia.
I really get the feeling we are here to stay, and by the actions and protestations of some of the scum 6, so do they ;)
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 18, 2024, 03:02:26 PM
Pete @ The Holy Trinity on a recent YT episode said that Nas is the Chairman of the largest shareholder of Juventus, Exor NV so it is no surprise that we have done some positive deals between the 2 clubs. Add to that the deal with Adidas and it goes to show the power and influence our owners have across the world.
https://www.exor.com/press-releases/2018-05-24/exor-establishes-partners-council-chaired-george-osborne
Also includes George Osborne and Jorge Paulo Lemann. The latter is the richest man in Brasil, and his company owns Burger King, Anheuser-Busch and Heinz. A few years back, I read 'Sonho grande: Como Jorge Paulo Lemann, Marcel Telles e Beto Sicupira revolucionaram o capitalismo brasileiro e conquistaram o mundo'. He's had an interesting life.
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 18, 2024, 06:23:09 PM
If he is worth an estimated 15 billion then he could give every person alive a billion and still have over half left
What a worldwide live in
Post by: Dave on July 18, 2024, 06:27:26 PM
If he is worth an estimated 15 billion then he could give every person alive a billion and still have over half left
I'd check that maths if I were you.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 18, 2024, 06:37:29 PM
If he is worth an estimated 15 billion then he could give every person alive a billion and still have over half left
I'd check that maths if I were you.
I believe the company he worked for was actually purchased for $7.60.
Post by: Dave P on July 18, 2024, 06:57:35 PM
If he is worth an estimated 15 billion then he could give every person alive a billion and still have over half left
I'd check that maths if I were you.
There’s only 15 people alive in the world? Seems more than that.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 18, 2024, 07:18:59 PM
If he is worth an estimated 15 billion then he could give every person alive a billion and still have over half left
I'd check that maths if I were you.
There’s only 15 people alive in the world? Seems more than that.
7 if he’d still have over half left. But just think if we were all billionaires, how much a pint of milk would be? And you’d think you coukd have any woman you want, but there would only be 3 or 4, and they’d be billionaires too!
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 18, 2024, 07:27:14 PM
And you’d think you coukd have any woman you want, but there would only be 3 or 4, and they’d be billionaires too!
Given the other 3 blokes could be Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, I'd fancy our chances.
Post by: Somniloquism on July 19, 2024, 09:30:33 AM
If he is worth an estimated 15 billion then he could give every person alive a billion and still have over half left
I'd check that maths if I were you.
Sounds like Hookey is an American news anchor.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/06/msnbc/bad-math-msnbc-bloombergs-ad-spending-wasnt-enough/
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 19, 2024, 02:18:03 PM
I am a twat
Post by: Drummond on July 19, 2024, 03:49:29 PM
Interesting that our rate of growth is 3rd largest in Europe in brand value % terms.
AC Milan - 162%, Bayer Leverkusen - 94% and then us on 70%. Next is Newcastle on 61%
Post by: rob_bridge on July 19, 2024, 03:53:16 PM
https://x.com/acmilandata/status/1814260894550933894
Interesting that our rate of growth is 3rd largest in Europe in brand value % terms.
AC Milan - 162%, Bayer Leverkusen - 94% and then us on 70%. Next is Newcastle on 61%
Suppose Gerard being hired bumped our profile if nothing else.
I think Martinez brilliance and Antics, hiring Emery, the Europa Conference league run and Champions League qualification and add in Ollie in Euros means highest profile for a long time
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 19, 2024, 04:17:56 PM
https://x.com/acmilandata/status/1814260894550933894
Interesting that our rate of growth is 3rd largest in Europe in brand value % terms.
AC Milan - 162%, Bayer Leverkusen - 94% and then us on 70%. Next is Newcastle on 61%
Suppose Gerard being hired bumped our profile if nothing else.
I think Martinez brilliance and Antics, hiring Emery, the Europa Conference league run and Champions League qualification and add in Ollie in Euros means highest profile for a long time
Yes, and I doubt the Euros and Copa America boosts are included yet. Then we’ve got the actual CL campaign, Adidas and 150th anniversary for further exposure.
Post by: Tuscans on July 19, 2024, 04:25:56 PM
https://x.com/acmilandata/status/1814260894550933894(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GS2-D66WQAEFQgz?format=jpg&name=large)
Interesting that our rate of growth is 3rd largest in Europe in brand value % terms.
AC Milan - 162%, Bayer Leverkusen - 94% and then us on 70%. Next is Newcastle on 61%
Post by: pablo_picasso on July 19, 2024, 04:28:54 PM
Post by: Dave P on July 19, 2024, 04:37:17 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on July 19, 2024, 04:56:02 PM
https://x.com/acmilandata/status/1814260894550933894(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GS2-D66WQAEFQgz?format=jpg&name=large)
Interesting that our rate of growth is 3rd largest in Europe in brand value % terms.
AC Milan - 162%, Bayer Leverkusen - 94% and then us on 70%. Next is Newcastle on 61%
I no jack shit about AC Milan, why are they that far ahead of everyone else?
Post by: Tuscans on July 19, 2024, 04:57:27 PM
https://brandfinance.com/insights/ac-milan-brand-identity-at-the-centre-of-growthhttps://x.com/acmilandata/status/1814260894550933894(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GS2-D66WQAEFQgz?format=jpg&name=large)
Interesting that our rate of growth is 3rd largest in Europe in brand value % terms.
AC Milan - 162%, Bayer Leverkusen - 94% and then us on 70%. Next is Newcastle on 61%
I no jack shit about AC Milan, why are they that far ahead of everyone else?
A major semi can attract a lot of people.
Post by: paul_e on July 19, 2024, 05:10:51 PM
I love the business we've done so far bringing in young quality players that can become world class with us but if we want to fast forward we need a name as well.
Post by: pablo_picasso on July 19, 2024, 05:25:45 PM
I wouldn't want us signing an old as fuck superstar just for his name, but we did sign someone like Williams, we really could take advantage of the PR from a signing like that.
I still don't know why we didn't utilise Alisha Lehmanns profile to our advantage. Don't get me wrong, shes an average footballer, but her social media reach is ridiculous for such an average player.
I think we missed a trick there with her profile reach.m
Post by: OCD on July 22, 2024, 11:09:40 AM
Post by: Tuscans on July 22, 2024, 11:13:25 AM
If we hadn't made those trades at the end of June we would have been in breach of PSR and faced a points deduction. Another month and we could potentially make a PSR profit of £50m from selling 2 players, and because of amortisation could spend £250m and be compliant. Just shows how daft the current system is.I understand why there's that c@nty group of clubs who don't want change because the revenues they generate are so high but why others didn't get on board of the small increase Heck/NSWE suggested in losses is surprising.
Post by: OCD on July 22, 2024, 11:31:01 AM
Post by: London Villan on July 22, 2024, 11:36:13 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on July 22, 2024, 12:24:04 PM
At the minute, if the maximum loss is £30m a year, you know that this is the potential bill you foot to play in the Premier League. And all the clubs are in the same boat.
If you vote to let clubs lose £40m a year, then you know you are probably going to be outspent and will also have to up your spending just to be in the same place you are now.
If you are Brentford or Ipswich or Luton, and success to you is staying in the Premier League, do you really want to vote to make that £10m a year more expensive?
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 22, 2024, 12:50:00 PM
The reason a lot of clubs will have voted down the loss increase is because, believe it or not, people don't want to endlessly pour money into a club just to stay where they are.
At the minute, if the maximum loss is £30m a year, you know that this is the potential bill you foot to play in the Premier League. And all the clubs are in the same boat.
If you vote to let clubs lose £40m a year, then you know you are probably going to be outspent and will also have to up your spending just to be in the same place you are now.
If you are Brentford or Ipswich or Luton, and success to you is staying in the Premier League, do you really want to vote to make that £10m a year more expensive?
But it is not mandatory to spend £30 - £40 million. It does however allow the clubs that are well run and have big backers to spend what they can afford
Post by: Dogtanian on July 22, 2024, 12:56:14 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 22, 2024, 01:39:47 PM
Post by: AV82EC on July 22, 2024, 03:19:23 PM
It obviously put us at odds with the clubs above us, and with those below as well, for the reasons stated above. The vote was more brutal than the Tory election result.
Yep think it was only us and C115y who voted for it.
Post by: LeeB on July 22, 2024, 03:41:10 PM
It obviously put us at odds with the clubs above us, and with those below as well, for the reasons stated above. The vote was more brutal than the Tory election result.
Yep think it was only us and C115y who voted for it.
We'll beat all of them so badly over the next few years they'll be desperate for it.
Post by: Tuscans on July 22, 2024, 11:42:23 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTICvInWkAACEPh?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTICvIlWoAArteo?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Post by: Olneythelonely on July 24, 2024, 11:33:14 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 24, 2024, 11:56:15 AM
Hope we’ve paid ourselves a handsome amount to rent out Bodymoor Heath to Real Unión whilst we’re in America
I've heard Josh Feeney's and Tommi O'Reilly's tour guide rates are very expensive.
Post by: garyellis on August 06, 2024, 12:27:52 PM
I caught the bit where it mentions Manure getting special concessions for Covid costs and Radcliffe investment costs.
They also mentioned us and the guy/expert reckons we will have a £100m deficit to sort out by June next year. So far we’ve found £25m from player trading
I assume this does not take account of CL money, increased gate receipts and the new adidas deal.
Post by: Beard82 on August 06, 2024, 12:38:30 PM
Did anyone catch the discussion on TS this morning.I imagine they are talking about the fact that the Grealish money will come off the rolling balance.
I caught the bit where it mentions Manure getting special concessions for Covid costs and Radcliffe investment costs.
They also mentioned us and the guy/expert reckons we will have a £100m deficit to sort out by June next year. So far we’ve found £25m from player trading
I assume this does not take account of CL money, increased gate receipts and the new adidas deal.
Post by: Tuscans on August 06, 2024, 10:48:08 PM
Did anyone catch the discussion on TS this morning.This is it @7:08 its very brief, about 20 seconds until they cut for the ads...
I caught the bit where it mentions Manure getting special concessions for Covid costs and Radcliffe investment costs.
They also mentioned us and the guy/expert reckons we will have a £100m deficit to sort out by June next year. So far we’ve found £25m from player trading
I assume this does not take account of CL money, increased gate receipts and the new adidas deal.
I sent him a quick question, "You say we have to find £75M in player sales next summer, is that with/without increased revenue from UECL, new sponsor and Adidas? The likely Duran and Carlos sales this window would almost cover that"?
His reply, "A very high level estimate on current sponsors and Adidas and CL. Yes Duran alone should get you in range"
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 07, 2024, 01:59:01 AM
https://x.com/danlang12/status/1820862860005712350?s=46
Post by: eamonn on August 07, 2024, 02:30:56 AM
Post by: LeonW on August 07, 2024, 03:49:48 AM
Did anyone catch the discussion on TS this morning.
I caught the bit where it mentions Manure getting special concessions for Covid costs and Radcliffe investment costs.
They also mentioned us and the guy/expert reckons we will have a £100m deficit to sort out by June next year. So far we’ve found £25m from player trading
I assume this does not take account of CL money, increased gate receipts and the new adidas deal.
I heard that with interest and he seems to be pretty good on this stuff. It did get me thinking about player sales vs points deductions/penalties. I very much doubt a points deduction (based upon what we’ve seen so far) would exceed the points won by an Emi or Ollie, so take the points deduction and keep the player.
Post by: Tuscans on August 11, 2024, 11:11:32 AM
BREAKING: Everton will begin the season with the threat of another POINTS DEDUCTION, as the Premier League alleges that the club breached its PSR rules by an extra £11.5m-£17m for the 2022-23 season.
Post by: eamonn on August 11, 2024, 04:32:53 PM
Post by: jwarry on August 11, 2024, 04:55:06 PM
FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
Post by: Accent Guy on August 12, 2024, 01:30:59 AM
FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
I think it was an intentional swipe at the cheats from the Etihad.
Post by: ChicagoLion on August 12, 2024, 06:55:08 AM
Not sure why they are called Stockport though.FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
I think it was an intentional swipe at the cheats from the Etihad.
Post by: Nev on August 12, 2024, 08:43:34 AM
Not sure why they are called Stockport though.FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
I think it was an intentional swipe at the cheats from the Etihad.
Traditionally, owing to their previous location at Maine Road when they operated as a normal Football Club, they drew a lot of support from nearby Stockport hence the nickname either Stockport City or more recently Stockport 115 as a disparaging and juvenile barb at the despicable organisation they have become today.
See also:
Heath, Small
Heath, Newton and
Woolwich.
Post by: ChicagoLion on August 12, 2024, 08:58:44 AM
But all those clubs were originally named or from, Stockport is a conurbation of greater Manchester but a town in its own right with a Football Club, why don’t we call Manure Bury or Bolton?Not sure why they are called Stockport though.FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Traditionally, owing to their previous location at Maine Road when they operated as a normal Football Club, they drew a lot of support from nearby Stockport hence the nickname either Stockport City or more recently Stockport 115 as a disparaging and juvenile barb at the despicable organisation they have become today.
See also:
Heath, Small
Heath, Newton and
Woolwich.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
I think it was an intentional swipe at the cheats from the Etihad.
No problem with disparaging Citeh but calling them Stockport doesn’t really do it.
Post by: Nev on August 12, 2024, 09:05:08 AM
But all those clubs were originally named or from, Stockport is a conurbation of greater Manchester but a town in its own right with a Football Club, why don’t we call Manure Bury or Bolton?Not sure why they are called Stockport though.FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Traditionally, owing to their previous location at Maine Road when they operated as a normal Football Club, they drew a lot of support from nearby Stockport hence the nickname either Stockport City or more recently Stockport 115 as a disparaging and juvenile barb at the despicable organisation they have become today.
See also:
Heath, Small
Heath, Newton and
Woolwich.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
I think it was an intentional swipe at the cheats from the Etihad.
No problem with disparaging Citeh but calling them Stockport doesn’t really do it.
Well, the way I see it, like a lot of what goes on here it doesn't really stand up to analysis but then it's not supposed to.
Post by: Risso on August 12, 2024, 09:07:19 AM
Post by: ozzjim on August 12, 2024, 09:40:19 AM
Post by: jwarry on August 12, 2024, 09:46:39 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on August 12, 2024, 10:02:58 AM
Post by: eamonn on August 12, 2024, 11:53:36 AM
Post by: Drummond on August 12, 2024, 11:57:56 AM
The Stockport thing was started by the ManU fans I think, as good enough reason as any not to use it.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on August 12, 2024, 11:58:37 AM
Yeah, I got the Stockport thing from Nev as it always made me chuckle. Humour is more important than facts on H&V.
Even on the Yanited forum they reckon Citeh draw their support from the SK postcodes, so there's a grain of truth in it.
Post by: Risso on August 12, 2024, 12:17:53 PM
Post by: Dave P on August 12, 2024, 12:33:31 PM
Post by: LeeB on August 12, 2024, 12:34:26 PM
Man City fans like to use the fact that Old Trafford is actually in Trafford rather than Manchester against the Man U fans, and so the 'Stockport' thing is a way of Man U trying to have a go back. It's quite weak, but there you are.
It's all bollocks but from personal experience the vast majority of Mancs are red.
Post by: Risso on August 12, 2024, 12:46:45 PM
Man City fans like to use the fact that Old Trafford is actually in Trafford rather than Manchester against the Man U fans, and so the 'Stockport' thing is a way of Man U trying to have a go back. It's quite weak, but there you are.
It's all bollocks but from personal experience the vast majority of Mancs are red.
That was my experience 20ish years ago when I worked in Manchester. I'd say I'd the majority of people who were from Manchester supported the red side. There were quite a few Man City fans, but they were shit then so were usually quite miserable. Obviously Man U had a big proportion of tourists in their home crowds. Having been to both away games a few times, you don't hear many Manc accents at the Etihad these days.
Post by: Bad English on August 12, 2024, 01:02:13 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 12, 2024, 01:03:43 PM
Not sure why they are called Stockport though.FFS, can we just relegate them and be done with all this piece-meal shit? Take Stockport City with them.
Stockport City come on Eamonn get a grip
I think it was an intentional swipe at the cheats from the Etihad.
Traditionally, owing to their previous location at Maine Road when they operated as a normal Football Club, they drew a lot of support from nearby Stockport hence the nickname either Stockport City or more recently Stockport 115 as a disparaging and juvenile barb at the despicable organisation they have become today.
See also:
Heath, Small
Heath, Newton and
Woolwich.
Stockport is a shite insult, IMO. It only undermines the history of the existing club in Stockport, not Man City. Which I've no wish to do, especially while they're employing one of our players.
If it's being used by Man U fans, all the more reason never to use it.
Post by: Nev on August 12, 2024, 01:46:23 PM
Post by: jon collett on August 12, 2024, 01:50:44 PM
Manchester United traditionally the regional Club with a wide catchment area like Villa.
Post by: AV82EC on August 12, 2024, 01:51:17 PM
Post by: TopDeck113 on August 12, 2024, 02:07:29 PM
See also:
Heath, Small
Heath, Newton and
Woolwich.
By that logic, Man City should be referred to as St. Mark's, West Gorton or Ardwick.
Annoyingly though for Man Utd fans, both of those are areas within Manchester. The whole "Stockport" jibe was their attempt to get back at the fact that for years the only thing that City fans had over them was the "we're the only team actually in Manchester".
Post by: eamonn on August 12, 2024, 02:27:59 PM
Last couple of games I've been to at VP I've had a French accent next to me each time.
SWMBO ?
Post by: Bad English on August 12, 2024, 05:12:02 PM
No. She would just read her Kindle and you wouldn't hear her.Last couple of games I've been to at VP I've had a French accent next to me each time.
SWMBO ?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on August 12, 2024, 07:23:44 PM
Last couple of games I've been to at VP I've had a French accent next to me each time.
SWMBO ?
Mme. Steinheil.
Post by: Tuscans on August 12, 2024, 08:40:22 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on August 12, 2024, 11:32:32 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 12, 2024, 11:33:43 PM
The hearing for their 115 charges supposedly starts next month
Pending further legal challenges/obstructions. Of which there will, presumably, be several.
Post by: ChicagoLion on August 13, 2024, 05:38:08 AM
Could this be the first season where the three relegated clubs all have points deductions? Everton, Leicester and Whalley Range.Whalley Range! Like it.
Post by: Hookeysmith on August 13, 2024, 12:41:01 PM
The hearing for their 115 charges supposedly starts next month
Pending further legal challenges/obstructions. Of which there will, presumably, be several.
Nothing will happen - punishment wise - whilst pep is still there
By the time anything solid happens the FA will be irrelevant as the super league will have been remoulded and implemented
Post by: Footy-Vill on August 14, 2024, 09:08:54 PM
FFP is outdated term , not used now and it's good to have our site up to date. There's so much to discuss regards this and haven't no PSR thread is not right.
With due respect.
Or should a new thread be started for PSR and squad cost ratio discussion ?
Post by: Tuscans on August 14, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Rather than start a new thread and despite the start of the 24/25 season could we update the title to PSR and Squad Cost Ratio.Don't start a new thread dude....please. Get someone to change this if you need to.
FFP is outdated term , not used now and it's good to have our site up to date. There's so much to discuss regards this and haven't no PSR thread is not right.
With due respect.
Or should a new thread be started for PSR and squad cost ratio discussion ?
Post by: Footy-Vill on August 14, 2024, 09:18:36 PM
Yes I do think best just to update the thread like it's done on other threads when need updating.Rather than start a new thread and despite the start of the 24/25 season could we update the title to PSR and Squad Cost Ratio.Don't start a new thread dude....please. Get someone to change this if you need to.
FFP is outdated term , not used now and it's good to have our site up to date. There's so much to discuss regards this and haven't no PSR thread is not right.
With due respect.
Or should a new thread be started for PSR and squad cost ratio discussion ?
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 14, 2024, 09:19:31 PM
Rather than start a new thread and despite the start of the 24/25 season could we update the title to PSR and Squad Cost Ratio.
FFP is outdated term , not used now and it's good to have our site up to date. There's so much to discuss regards this and haven't no PSR thread is not right.
With due respect.
Or should a new thread be started for PSR and squad cost ratio discussion ?
Try to not worry about these things too much.
Post by: Footy-Vill on August 14, 2024, 11:43:12 PM
Rather than start a new thread and despite the start of the 24/25 season could we update the title to PSR and Squad Cost Ratio.
FFP is outdated term , not used now and it's good to have our site up to date. There's so much to discuss regards this and haven't no PSR thread is not right.
With due respect.
Or should a new thread be started for PSR and squad cost ratio discussion ?
Premier League chief executive Richard Masters says that a “collective spirit” still exists in the competition despite the charges against Manchester City, Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester City. He also acknowledged that clubs will always try to find an edge on one another on and off the pitch
“It is a competition so it’s set up for people to compete with each other and clubs compete on the pitch, off the pitch, in sponsorship markets, for new investment,” he said. “Everyone is trying to find an angle, whether it be signing a player, finding a way to be better in the Premier League and I think that is a great thing.
“I don’t believe in rule breaching, as you could imagine – and we will deal with that - but I do think … everybody understands that the Premier League is a fantastic football competition that needs preserving and protecting and that’s principally the Premier League’s role. Everyone has to play their part and I believe they understand that and they do that.”
Post by: Demitri_C on August 28, 2024, 08:36:55 AM
We have the CL money coming on top of the sales of diaby luiz kellyman timmy to name a few. Thats on top of the betano and adidas deals We must be in a good place with FFP surely
Post by: eamonn on August 28, 2024, 10:34:17 AM
Could this be the first season where the three relegated clubs all have points deductions? Everton, Leicester and Whalley Range.Whalley Range! Like it.
Is he anything to Nile Ranger?
Post by: ozzjim on August 28, 2024, 10:50:15 AM
So how are we looking in terms of FFP? I mean we sold alot and signed a lot but without being a expert on this - surely we are in a healthy position?
We have the CL money coming on top of the sales of diaby luiz kellyman timmy to name a few. Thats on top of the betano and adidas deals We must be in a good place with FFP surely
All down to the wage/ turnover ratio now.
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2024, 02:44:43 PM
That doesn't really pass the smell test to me.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 29, 2024, 02:58:02 PM
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2024, 03:01:45 PM
But the owner of Lyon is currently trying to buy Everton. And given who the Forest owner is, I'd wonder if Olympiakos might end up doing any interesting deals with Lyon sometime soon.
You scratch my back...
Post by: Demitri_C on August 29, 2024, 08:44:05 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on August 30, 2024, 01:41:26 AM
Post by: Demitri_C on August 30, 2024, 07:18:51 AM
I don’t think Vittoria could afford Diabys wages.
What about timmy? Carlos? Moreno? Dobbin?
Post by: Demitri_C on August 31, 2024, 08:25:48 AM
I dont get it. Something stinks
Post by: Ads on August 31, 2024, 08:45:58 AM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Broad answers:
They brought in about £350m more than us last season, this gives them wiggle room
They don't pay as higher wages as you'd assume, their current strategy is highly incentivised contracts, which clearly won't work out for the 14 players who don't make the squad.
They amortise the costs over the full 5 years, and longer prior to the rule change. Coupled with asset sales, they've been able to get the annual threshold.
The catch comes with; (i) the longer they're unsuccessful in making the top 4, the less they will generate, (ii) every year they make compliance harder by giving themselves less wiggle room. The average club has 80-90 years of accumulative contracts, Chelsea have 191. (iii) player sales are vital to their model. If they become less successful, their players value is likely to drop. (iv) the less successful they are the more they change their manager, adding redundant contract expenses (not meant in employees rights terms).(v) Rule changes around assets being acquired by different entities within the Group box them in.
Post by: Demitri_C on August 31, 2024, 11:09:20 AM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Broad answers:
They brought in about £350m more than us last season, this gives them wiggle room
They don't pay as higher wages as you'd assume, their current strategy is highly incentivised contracts, which clearly won't work out for the 14 players who don't make the squad.
They amortise the costs over the full 5 years, and longer prior to the rule change. Coupled with asset sales, they've been able to get the annual threshold.
The catch comes with; (i) the longer they're unsuccessful in making the top 4, the less they will generate, (ii) every year they make compliance harder by giving themselves less wiggle room. The average club has 80-90 years of accumulative contracts, Chelsea have 191. (iii) player sales are vital to their model. If they become less successful, their players value is likely to drop. (iv) the less successful they are the more they change their manager, adding redundant contract expenses (not meant in employees rights terms).(v) Rule changes around assets being acquired by different entities within the Group box them in.
Thanks ads. I would be curious to see what their wage bill is in comparison to us
You would imagine the gates are closing on them if they continue not getting CL and these loopholes wont be able to be exposed for much longer.
Post by: Dogtanian on August 31, 2024, 11:26:00 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 01, 2024, 09:49:01 AM
https://x.com/espenstrand/status/1830026124572672057?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Post by: Demitri_C on September 01, 2024, 08:50:48 PM
Forbes reporting on FFP:
https://x.com/espenstrand/status/1830026124572672057?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Thanks percy. That is spot on by forbes.
Its a tough a one really because there does need to be some regulation otherwise newcastle would just spend 500m odd every summer and blow everyone out of the water.
But at same time they need to take into consideration CL clubs have had a heads start over the rest of us.
I think wage caps and squad size would help and that would stop this madness that chelsea are doing
Post by: tony scott on September 01, 2024, 09:18:32 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on September 01, 2024, 09:32:02 PM
Wage and squad size caps,plus a critical evaluation of the loan system.
Cannot believe there is no squad size cap. Thats just beggars belief
Post by: paul_e on September 01, 2024, 09:41:04 PM
Wage and squad size caps,plus a critical evaluation of the loan system.
There needs to be something on the commercial side if the aim is a fair and competitive league, the difference in income is far to big right now.
Post by: Dave on September 01, 2024, 11:07:26 PM
Its a tough a one really because there does need to be some regulation otherwise newcastle would just spend 500m odd every summer and blow everyone out of the water.
But at same time they need to take into consideration CL clubs have had a heads start over the rest of us.
So what we need to do is find the sweet spot which stops Newcastle from spending hundreds of millions of pounds to help them consolidate their top four position last year, BUT allows us to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to help us consolidate our top four position this year?
Tricky one.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 01, 2024, 11:34:19 PM
Post by: paul_e on September 01, 2024, 11:45:35 PM
While not the fault of the current owners the reason we are so far behind some others is they spent the last decade plus being good while we spent it being shit. Now we aren't shit we can spend more than most of the rest of the league, is that fair on everyone else that can't spend what we can as a CL club? Yes, stop being shitter than us if you want to catch us up.
That's the thing though, once the idea of a 'big 6' became entrenched being shit stopped being a problem for those teams, they can under-achieve for 3-4 seasons in a row and still have huge commercial revenue that gives them the chance to throw more and more money at it. For a team like us (and even Newcastle despite who owns them) you have to keep getting it right for the same 3-4 seasons if you want to start acting the same. Look at Leicester, they won a couple of trophies but had a couple of bad windows and ended up relegated, whilst Man Utd and Chelsea have fucked up over and over again and still tick along because even if they waste £200-300m they'll just throw the same amount around the next window, and the next until they find something that works.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 02, 2024, 02:13:52 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on September 02, 2024, 06:41:07 AM
It’s a good description of the law of diminishing returns.Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Broad answers:
They brought in about £350m more than us last season, this gives them wiggle room
They don't pay as higher wages as you'd assume, their current strategy is highly incentivised contracts, which clearly won't work out for the 14 players who don't make the squad.
They amortise the costs over the full 5 years, and longer prior to the rule change. Coupled with asset sales, they've been able to get the annual threshold.
The catch comes with; (i) the longer they're unsuccessful in making the top 4, the less they will generate, (ii) every year they make compliance harder by giving themselves less wiggle room. The average club has 80-90 years of accumulative contracts, Chelsea have 191. (iii) player sales are vital to their model. If they become less successful, their players value is likely to drop. (iv) the less successful they are the more they change their manager, adding redundant contract expenses (not meant in employees rights terms).(v) Rule changes around assets being acquired by different entities within the Group box them in.
Gallagher was the last rabbit they pulled out of the hat, it’s hard to see how player sales will continue to generate the profits to compensate for the financial excess.
I believe football is close to hitting or above the sustainable number of highly paid professional players.
In the past the excess has been taken up by Turkey, USA, China and now Saudi but there are limitations on that capacity.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 02, 2024, 09:08:28 AM
Its a tough a one really because there does need to be some regulation otherwise newcastle would just spend 500m odd every summer and blow everyone out of the water.
But at same time they need to take into consideration CL clubs have had a heads start over the rest of us.
So what we need to do is find the sweet spot which stops Newcastle from spending hundreds of millions of pounds to help them consolidate their top four position last year, BUT allows us to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to help us consolidate our top four position this year?
Tricky one.
The only way i see it is if the losses allowed are a bigger number or spread over 5 years as opposed to 3. I think we propoaed option 1 and everyone voted against it even newcastle (which was odd)
Post by: Dante Lavelli on September 02, 2024, 11:51:37 AM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Their income is £500m/season ours is closer to £200m. the wage bill can be a maximum of 80% turnover or something like that.
Post by: paul_e on September 02, 2024, 12:18:35 PM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Their income is £500m/season ours is closer to £200m. the wage bill can be a maximum of 80% turnover or something like that.
Ours was that a couple of seasons ago, last year will be more like £260-270m (there should be about £35-40m from Europe and improved league placings and then some small commercial increase) and with the new kit, sponsor, Champions League, etc I'd hope we're looking at £350m-ish this season.
Still a big gap but another season or 2 of being competitive in the league and qualifying for Europe will have us in a much stronger position.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 02, 2024, 02:05:49 PM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Their income is £500m/season ours is closer to £200m. the wage bill can be a maximum of 80% turnover or something like that.
Ours was that a couple of seasons ago, last year will be more like £260-270m (there should be about £35-40m from Europe and improved league placings and then some small commercial increase) and with the new kit, sponsor, Champions League, etc I'd hope we're looking at £350m-ish this season.
Still a big gap but another season or 2 of being competitive in the league and qualifying for Europe will have us in a much stronger position.
Hopefully 5th gets CL if that does that would help us at least get CL again as although it appears unlikely we can do it again we are in with a shout as manure and chelsea havent looked great so far
Post by: Drummond on September 02, 2024, 02:28:22 PM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Their income is £500m/season ours is closer to £200m. the wage bill can be a maximum of 80% turnover or something like that.
Ours was that a couple of seasons ago, last year will be more like £260-270m (there should be about £35-40m from Europe and improved league placings and then some small commercial increase) and with the new kit, sponsor, Champions League, etc I'd hope we're looking at £350m-ish this season.
Still a big gap but another season or 2 of being competitive in the league and qualifying for Europe will have us in a much stronger position.
Hopefully 5th gets CL if that does that would help us at least get CL again as although it appears unlikely we can do it again we are in with a shout as manure and chelsea havent looked great so far
Not bothered whether 5th gets it. we'll qualify as winners anyway.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 02, 2024, 03:00:47 PM
Can someone tell me how chelsea are meeting the wages side of FFP? We had to sell diaby to comply and Chelsea's wage bill must be through the roof?
I dont get it. Something stinks
Their income is £500m/season ours is closer to £200m. the wage bill can be a maximum of 80% turnover or something like that.
Ours was that a couple of seasons ago, last year will be more like £260-270m (there should be about £35-40m from Europe and improved league placings and then some small commercial increase) and with the new kit, sponsor, Champions League, etc I'd hope we're looking at £350m-ish this season.
Still a big gap but another season or 2 of being competitive in the league and qualifying for Europe will have us in a much stronger position.
Hopefully 5th gets CL if that does that would help us at least get CL again as although it appears unlikely we can do it again we are in with a shout as manure and chelsea havent looked great so far
Not bothered whether 5th gets it. we'll qualify as winners anyway.
Of the league, CL or both ? 😀
Post by: Demitri_C on September 03, 2024, 03:47:54 PM
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
Post by: dekko on September 03, 2024, 03:56:37 PM
I just noticed burnley have even jumped on the documentary band wagon with "mission to burnley"
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
Apparently we filmed one in the hope of selling it.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on September 03, 2024, 04:01:37 PM
I just noticed burnley have even jumped on the documentary band wagon with "mission to burnley"
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
Apparently we filmed one in the hope of selling it.
And the lack of a buyer confirms that, rather than there being an anti-Villa agenda, we're just not that interesting to most people.
Post by: eamonn on September 03, 2024, 04:08:30 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on September 03, 2024, 04:12:39 PM
We can't keep up with the Sunderland Til I Dies or Leeds Are Falling Apart (Again) narrated by Russell Crowe.
Yeah. 'Sixth-best team in the country finishes two places above sixth' isn't much of a story.
Post by: Dave on September 03, 2024, 04:16:15 PM
I just noticed burnley have even jumped on the documentary band wagon with "mission to burnley"
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
Apparently we filmed one in the hope of selling it.
And the lack of a buyer confirms that, rather than there being an anti-Villa agenda, we're just not that interesting to most people.
As you know, our thoughts are very much aligned on the whole "the media hate us" silliness, but presumably we wouldn't have been looking for much money?
If it's an in-house production, presumably it's all made and ready to go, with the intention of getting exposure and building a brand *spit*, rather than trying to flog it to the highest bidder to make money.
You'd have thought that Amazon, who are desperate to bulk up their sport offerings, and have Champions League rights this season might have been interested in putting it out there as a "will Villa make the Champions League for the first time in forever, which you can coincidentally watch right here on Amazon Prime" tie in.
I'm not saying they're going to chuck Top Gun: Maverick off the platform to make space for us, but it's wouldn't be the weirdest thing for them to have in their vault for people to watch.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on September 03, 2024, 04:22:44 PM
I just noticed burnley have even jumped on the documentary band wagon with "mission to burnley"
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
Apparently we filmed one in the hope of selling it.
And the lack of a buyer confirms that, rather than there being an anti-Villa agenda, we're just not that interesting to most people.
As you know, our thoughts are very much aligned on the whole "the media hate us" silliness, but presumably we wouldn't have been looking for much money?
If it's an in-house production, presumably it's all made and ready to go, with the intention of getting exposure and building a brand *spit*, rather than trying to flog it to the highest bidder to make money.
You'd have thought that Amazon, who are desperate to bulk up their sport offerings, and have Champions League rights this season might have been interested in putting it out there as a "will Villa make the Champions League for the first time in forever, which you can coincidentally watch right here on Amazon Prime" tie in.
I'm not saying they're going to chuck Top Gun: Maverick off the platform to make space for us, but it's wouldn't be the weirdest thing for them to have in their vault for people to watch.
And yet they haven't!
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 03, 2024, 04:31:06 PM
Post by: Risso on September 03, 2024, 04:33:35 PM
We finished 4th and qualified for the Champions League
Post by: Dave on September 03, 2024, 04:35:38 PM
Maybe it was shit so no one wanted it.
That's where my money would go.
Heck hires a crew who put together a glossy, corporate-style hagiography about how great the club is. Send it round the streaming companies who say "you've not sent us a fly-on-the-wall documentary, you've sent us an advert for your club. Pass".
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 03, 2024, 04:39:16 PM
It isn't about Hägar the Horrible.
#sadnessinmyeyes
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on September 03, 2024, 04:41:02 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on September 03, 2024, 06:37:44 PM
*Googles hagiography*
It isn't about Hägar the Horrible.
Of course not, it's about "The Maradona of the Carpathians".
Post by: Demitri_C on September 03, 2024, 07:54:53 PM
Also i thought the company that owns part of v sports was into tv?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on September 03, 2024, 08:05:12 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on September 03, 2024, 08:07:20 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 03, 2024, 08:07:32 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on September 03, 2024, 08:17:52 PM
I just noticed burnley have even jumped on the documentary band wagon with "mission to burnley"
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
As there are so many documentaries nowadays “us v FFP” would actually be quite a good angle. Emery and co discussing how to navigate the stupid rules whilst heck desperately tries to increase revenue.
Post by: KevinGage on September 03, 2024, 09:01:12 PM
I just noticed burnley have even jumped on the documentary band wagon with "mission to burnley"
I do wonder if we have gone down this route last season. I mean that season last year would have made a awesome documentary and given us exposure to help with FFP
As there are so many documentaries nowadays “us v FFP” would actually be quite a good angle. Emery and co discussing how to navigate the stupid rules whilst heck desperately tries to increase revenue.
Or how about Damian Vidagany repeatedly punching Michel Platini in the face.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 03, 2024, 10:08:59 PM
Our finances must have been a mess - probably explains why we got rid of diaby after only a season
Post by: ChicagoLion on September 03, 2024, 10:33:46 PM
Theres a story on tomorrows star revealing how close we were to a 10 points deduction and the luiz sale last minute prevented that.Gives more credence to the West Ham pulling out of the Duran deal story, forcing us to sell Luiz pronto.
Our finances must have been a mess - probably explains why we got rid of diaby after only a season
Post by: Somniloquism on September 03, 2024, 10:58:32 PM
Theres a story on tomorrows star revealing how close we were to a 10 points deduction and the luiz sale last minute prevented that.
Our finances must have been a mess - probably explains why we got rid of diaby after only a season
Six points with the potential of reduction as shown with the Everton appeal and Nottingham. One of those to prefer not to lose points as it can make a difference at the end. And I expect they don't think not having Luiz will cost us those in the season either.
Post by: Olneythelonely on September 03, 2024, 11:12:42 PM
Post by: AV84 on September 03, 2024, 11:30:50 PM
Post by: Dave on September 03, 2024, 11:34:58 PM
So you can break the rules in the Championship but only so long as you break them enough to get promoted...
...unless you're Nottingham Forest. In which case the losses you made while in the Championship are still going to be counted in the decision to deduct you points in the Premier League.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 03, 2024, 11:43:34 PM
Theres a story on tomorrows star revealing how close we were to a 10 points deduction and the luiz sale last minute prevented that.Gives more credence to the West Ham pulling out of the Duran deal story, forcing us to sell Luiz pronto.
Our finances must have been a mess - probably explains why we got rid of diaby after only a season
I doubt it. Selling Luiz was much more lucrative than Duran, seeing as he was almost pure profit, which is why he’d been designated as the preferred sale for some time.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 03, 2024, 11:46:30 PM
Theres a story on tomorrows star revealing how close we were to a 10 points deduction and the luiz sale last minute prevented that.
Our finances must have been a mess - probably explains why we got rid of diaby after only a season
Six points with the potential of reduction as shown with the Everton appeal and Nottingham. One of those to prefer not to lose points as it can make a difference at the end. And I expect they don't think not having Luiz will cost us those in the season either.
Yes, I was gonna say, 10 points is way over the top. When Everton got their reduction, part of the reasoning was you only get 9 for administration, so it can never be that high for a PSR breach, never mind higher.
Post by: Clampy on September 03, 2024, 11:50:32 PM
Post by: coreyfeldman on September 04, 2024, 12:08:53 AM
Post by: Toronto Villa on September 04, 2024, 12:33:34 AM
It puts into focus what a difficult job Monchi sometimes has instead of 'he's not as good as we thought he was' that's been banded about.
Yep. Needing everything to align just bring a player in. I’m sure there wasn’t a long line up for Kellyman at £20m for example. But Chelsea being Chelsea paid a stupid fee, stuck him in box never to be seen again, and then had us splash out £35m or so on Maatsen. Everything was just a numbers game. Like in their right mind is paying £9m for Dobbin. But we did so Tim could go for the same deal on the books. And in scratching backs we get Onana for fee reputedly less than something they could have got from other club.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 04, 2024, 12:58:15 AM
It puts into focus what a difficult job Monchi sometimes has instead of 'he's not as good as we thought he was' that's been banded about.
Yep. Needing everything to align just bring a player in. I’m sure there wasn’t a long line up for Kellyman at £20m for example. But Chelsea being Chelsea paid a stupid fee, stuck him in box never to be seen again, and then had us splash out £35m or so on Maatsen. Everything was just a numbers game. Like in their right mind is paying £9m for Dobbin. But we did so Tim could go for the same deal on the books. And in scratching backs we get Onana for fee reputedly less than something they could have got from other club.
Judging by how he’s started we could well end up getting the £13m for Tim. And he’ll still be a bargain for them.
Post by: Villafirst on September 04, 2024, 02:34:08 AM
Post by: frank black on September 04, 2024, 06:47:39 AM
Also hopefully puts to a stop to some of the idiotic "has our pants pulled down for dougie" nonsense
They did though, understandable though given we had bugger all choice. They got him cheap and we’ll probably never see those swap players in our first team.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 04, 2024, 06:51:06 AM
Although im not happy about the luiz and diaby sale i think i can finally accept it based on reading this. I didnt really it was THIS bad.
But our finances must have got a but better if we could spend 50m on one player though
Post by: Demitri_C on September 04, 2024, 07:22:49 AM
MONCHI AND VIDAGANY ADDRESS ASTON VILLA’S PSR PUZZLE, KEEPING EMERY HAPPY, AND TRANSFER DEALS
The morning after the transfer window shut, Monchi and Damian Vidagany arrived downstairs at the team hotel to meet a small group of journalists.
Aston Villa were playing Leicester City in the afternoon, but minds had been focused on the business of the day before and throughout the summer. Monchi, president of football operations, and Vidagany, director of football, were tasked with navigating Villa through the profit and sustainability (PSR) issues while needing to upgrade the squad to be capable of competing in the Champions League.
In an hour-long conversation, Monchi and Vidagany explained the complexities and contradictions Villa faced when adhering to PSR, how close the club was to possible points deductions, the thinking behind departures and incomings, and their overall view on how successful recruitment was.
Here, The Athletic details what Villa’s senior decision-makers said and the context behind what they meant.
ON ... VILLA’S PSR PREDICAMENT
The Athletic: Vidagany and Monchi led Villa’s attempt to arrest PSR issues. Villa had two deadlines this summer: pre-June 30, which was the end of the previous PSR accounting period, and August 30, the final day of the transfer window.
As The Athletic outlined in January, the summer of 2024 was gearing up to be a dangerous one as Villa had been covered by the £100million sale of homegrown product Jack Grealish in 2021. This time, and even with Champions League riches, Villa had to find a way to make up for the loss-making. There was a possibility that if Monchi and Vidagany did not act, Villa could have faced a 10-point deduction.
Vidagany: "I don’t want to disclose exactly the figures, but at the end of the season, we found ourselves in a situation where we had to do an important number in profit to avoid being in breach of PSR. It’s not about just having to sell the players that are providing you profit, but at the same time — and this is the most challenging thing — the players that Unai considers not crucial for the team.”
Monchi: "It’s important to understand in this window we have two different moments. Before June 30, we needed to find the solution for financial fair play and after June 30, we needed to build the best squad possible. The last seven days of June maybe was the worst moment because we had a big responsibility.”
Vidagany: "You need to find the solution for a problem. We found a moment when everybody was cheering and celebrating the Champions League, but Monchi and I were at the party thinking how not to spoil this beautiful year by having a points deduction. There was a bomb with the countdown, and we were there to cut the cable.”
The Athletic: Similarly to Jack Grealish, a straightforward way of remedying PSR fears was to sell another homegrown product for substantial money, registering as pure bookable profit. In this case, it was Jacob Ramsey. Alternatively, it could have been a marquee player like Emi Martinez or Ollie Watkins — Monchi says they had offers for the former. However, knowing Villa’s matter of urgency, some clubs offered fees for players below their market value.
Vidagany: "We had to take decisions that wouldn’t condition us too much for the rest of the period because if we sold whatever it took — let’s say Ramsey — it would not be at the best price, but clubs knew our weakness.”
Monchi: "If we sold Ramsey, it (PSR) would be solved. And we could (have) because we had offers.”
Vidagany: “We needed to manage the solution of PSR but not take out one of Unai’s most important players.”
Monchi: "Another solution was to put onto the market Watkins. It’s an easy solution as he’s a top striker. Or to sell the best goalkeeper in the world because we had offers for Martinez.”
Vidagany: "To sell (Ezri) Konsa, to sell (Leon) Bailey… The priority was to solve PSR, but we should not compromise the success of the next season.”
The Athletic: Villa instead looked for creative ways to resolve PSR, which included separate player transactions. Villa signed Ian Maatsen from Chelsea, while Omari Kellyman went the other way. The same happened with Everton between Lewis Dobbin and Tim Iroegbunam. Most notably, Douglas Luiz was sold to Juventus, with Enzo Barrenechea and Samuel Iling-Junior — who both ended up leaving on loan — joining Villa.
Vidagany: "Some clubs who didn’t have the problem tried to take advantage. This is important because this is a jungle and everyone looks for their interest. This is normal. But the key deal was Douglas Luiz.
“This is the worst market in history because we were so pressured by time, by the weakness you are showing, and because there are many actors in the deals. If one of the domino pieces jumps out of the line, you won’t complete it. That’s why it was very difficult. It was not only one agent, one player, but three agents, three players, two clubs. It’s like an exponential problem.”
ON… THE JUVENTUS PLAYER TRADES
Vidagany: "Samuel and Enzo are young players we trust. Maybe we knew they wouldn’t be ready to play for us immediately, but both are young, talented, sustainable salaries and in the next year they’re going to be good assets. We were very worried because we needed to do other deals. Why? First, we were not sure because the PSR is changing. It depends on the cash flow, the revenue, your last ticketing, a new shirt sponsor, whatever. So the number was fluid. But if you go £1million over the limit, you have a deduction. Monchi and I travelled to Italy in the last week of May. We got a pre-agreement (with Juventus for Douglas Luiz), but the final signature happened on June 30. It was a rollercoaster.”
Monchi: "Douglas was in the USA with Brazil for the Copa America. He needed to do the medical and sign the contract… crazy.”
Vidagany: "There was one sleepless night. They played in Vegas and then after the game they were supposed to go to a hotel where he was signing the contract, but Brazil’s national team stopped them from going to Vegas as they were scared about partying. From the moment we shook hands with (Cristiano) Giuntoli from Juventus (their sporting director) until the final signing, it was one month.”
ON… SIGNING PLAYERS TO PLEASE EMERY AND THE CONTRADICTIONS OF PSR
Vidagany: :The one deal that became clear for us was Maatsen. Monchi and Unai decided we needed a different left-back, more offensive.”
Monchi: "We needed to wait because (Borussia) Dortmund had an option to buy Maatsen. When it finished…”
The Athletic: Kellyman’s ’s exit cut deep but, from Villa’s perspective, played to the theory that PSR incentivises selling homegrown talents.
Journalist: Did you target selling Kellyman and Iroegbunam because it was pure profit?
Vidagany: "No, because the PSR system makes it more attractive for the club to sell and buy academy players. Why? They are pure profit from the sales and cheap salaries for the buys. PSR was created to protect the stability and sustainability of the league, but it’s not perfect. It has a big failure and that’s pushing the clubs to do deals, sometimes not naturally. To sell an academy player you raise, in whom you have invested a lot of human capital, a lot of years, is not natural.”
Monchi: "If you play in Europe, you can have a problem. You need to have four club-trained home-grown players in your squad. This season, we can have only 23 players because we only have two: Jacob (Ramsey) and Jaden (Philogene). If Omari was here, we could have 24 or 25.”
Vidagany: "PSR and SCR (Squad Cost Ratio) from UEFA are not matching.”
The Athletic: SCR is when clubs are restricted in the percentage of their turnover they can spend on transfer fees and salaries. Next season it is 90 per cent of turnover before reducing to 70 per cent turnover from the 2025-26 campaign.
Vidagany: "They are two different parcels in two different hands. SCR forces you to sell expensive players. For instance, to decrease our ratio of cost, we had a great deal that was (Moussa) Diaby to Al Ittihad. Even though he cost a lot, the fact we sold him for big money means we don’t have a big profit. So we have to sell expensive players. But if you want to stick to PSR, you have to sell cheaper players and academy players. It’s almost impossible to match both. The EPL is not aligned with UEFA rules.
“Don’t forget, it’s not about signing players but extending the contracts of Watkins, (John) McGinn, Konsa, Mings, Bailey, Emi. We extend the contracts of the most important players with higher salaries. Why? Because they are performing well. This increases the cost. In our case, this is the most difficult thing. We have (Emiliano) Buendia, (Tyrone) Mings, (Boubacar) Kamara and Ramsey — four players, three very expensive — and we didn’t have the asset because they were injured. We had to replace them with Clement Lenglet and Nicolo Zaniolo.”
The Athletic: Again, Vidagany explains the jarring nature of PSR and SCR rules and their contradictions. Vidagany remarks on the additional financial pressures Villa encountered following four long-term injuries to key players, having to pay their salaries in full (unlike some other sports, such as the NFL, which can restructure contracts, so not all the money in their contract is guaranteed) while having to source replacements.
Monchi: "We had four objectives. First: find a solution for the PSR. That’s the most important. Second: to have a younger squad. Three: to have a deeper squad. Why? Because we need to play more competitions. The fourth was to be aligned with what Unai wants.”
Vidagany: "We have to make sure that all this food we are cooking is liked by Unai. He was aware of all the transfer situations we had. We spoke for four or five hours every day during his holiday. Ross Barkley was agreed before. Unai shared with Monchi over Morgan Rogers: ‘I like this guy’, so we decided to sign him. He was a market opportunity. I don’t want to blame anyone, but the most difficult thing is we were a team that, two years ago, was fighting for the top 10. The club recruited many players for that goal.
“But suddenly we became a European contender and a Champions League contender. The majority of the players were not at the level we were demanding for this new Villa. It takes a lot of time, sacrifices and work to sell players. The list is long of very good players that were also good professionals but not suitable for the manager and his demand of this club.”
ON… SIGNING AMADOU ONANA AND THE BALANCE OF THE SQUAD
Vidagany: "During this period, Unai identified a very important position to cover, a No 6. Last season after the Kamara injury, if you see the numbers, it is not a secret we conceded a lot more goals and were weaker in defence.
Monchi: "The priority, for me.”
Vidagany: "When Kamara comes back, we need a player who can play with him. When Kamara is not here, we need a player who can play alone. When Onana is not, Kamara can play. I do not want to go into the figures (on Onana). The first request we received, we said OK and didn’t talk to Everton for one month because it was impossible. But then the market moved and Onana wanted to come to Villa. We had an impression when Onana understood what Unai wanted from him — he was rejecting one of the top, top clubs in this country. The manager of that club met Onana, and Onana said he wanted to go to Villa. It was a sign of commitment.
“I always say to Unai, ‘We cannot have everything you want in one market. Not in two markets, three markets’. Now we are close to the idea he wants. It is not a perfect squad.”
Monchi: “We are happy with the squad — one to play in different competitions.”
The Athletic: There is an acceptance that Villa are light in certain areas, particularly defence, and are hamstrung by PSR restrictions and the time it takes to evolve a squad. Villa are still transitioning from players who had been part of previous regimes and those Emery sees with diminishing value. There has been a huge turnover in the number of outgoings, with Vidagany and Monchi believing they are closer to the overall make-up of the team Emery, the key figure, desires.
ON… IF VILLA WILL HAVE PSR ISSUES NEXT YEAR AND SELLING PLAYERS
Vidagany: "No, this season is the last one with PSR as it is. We are going to be in a situation where we don’t know because it depends a lot on the revenues we are going to receive from the Champions League. We don’t know how much we are going to get from the Champions League. You only know what you need at the end of the season.”
Monchi: "We need to consider the profit as revenue and to consider in future that to sell a player is revenue. Because we cannot have more revenue. When Damian worked in Valencia and I worked in Sevilla, it was OK to increase the level by selling players. The most important thing is not selling players: the most important thing is to buy good players. We are not afraid to sell players, but we had to do it within a plan. We need to sell players because (Manchester) City sell players, Arsenal sell players, Real Madrid and Barcelona sell players. The most important thing is to have a buyer and then buy a player to replace them.”
Vidagany: "There was a difference with Monchi or during my time with Valencia when we were selling the best players and buying others who were cheaper. We didn’t have the resources to pay the players because the club had a revenue and if your expenses were bigger than your income then, in a few years, you would go bankrupt. Now that’s not the case with Villa because our owners would like to invest, they would like to be at the top, but they are not allowed to do it. You cannot put money up front, you cannot guarantee money — the Premier League says, ‘No, no no’, it’s their business model. If you have losses, you cannot spend.”
The Athletic: Once more, their frustrations are aired towards PSR limitations and why Villa, in short, being a Champions League club without Champions League revenue restricts how much the club’s willing owners can spend because their revenue is inferior to most others in the competition. Therefore, they are not permitted to spend comparable amounts. There is an acknowledgement that Villa will sell important players with an onus to replace well.
Journalist: If the rules didn’t exist, would the owners have invested big money this summer?
Vidagany: “If there was no PSR, the window would have been absolutely different. I don’t think there would be a big difference in the players we would bring in. Perhaps we’d bring in one more because we could do it. However, we could sell better, without the pressure of PSR. We could have sold Douglas Luiz for more and with no rush.”
The Athletic: Villa believe Emery’s excellence in breaking the top four ceiling means they should be allowed to spend more money. Yet the club feel thwarted because they do not have the revenues of others. The fear is that Villa become stuck in a holding pattern. One key way to grow revenue is through the proposed stadium redevelopment, but this was shelved due to short-term needs.
Vidagany: "We have no debt. We are a club that is balanced with committed owners. We don’t owe money to anyone, but clubs with more revenue but huge debts can spend much more than us. Where is the sense in that? Let me know… Many clubs borrow money. We don’t have this problem, but we still can’t spend.
“The system is perversion because it doesn’t matter how committed your owners are, how wealthy they are or how good your accounts are. You are not allowed to grow because you don’t have more revenues. To get revenue, what do you need? To win. What do you need to win? To spend. But you can not spend. So if you don’t spend, you don’t win, you don’t get revenue and you stay in the same cycle always.”
Journalist: What would your solution to PSR be?
Vidagany: "The Premier League is dealing with the approval of a new system, which will be aligned to UEFA. It will be like spending 85 per cent of your revenue. The only possibility to get out of this loop of winning to get revenue to then get players is to get a miracle like what Unai is doing.”
Post by: sid1964 on September 04, 2024, 07:24:05 AM
Post by: Nev on September 04, 2024, 07:32:00 AM
Not that I can see it making any difference...
Post by: Demitri_C on September 04, 2024, 08:13:30 AM
That would have grown revenue. If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.
These new lower grounds TV etc are generating revenue but speaking to people a majority say its worth doing once or twice but thats it. Not value for money.
Expansion of stadium would have been a better long term plan
Post by: Olneythelonely on September 04, 2024, 08:18:07 AM
If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.
But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.
Post by: frank black on September 04, 2024, 08:23:42 AM
Having read the above Athletic article - interesting comment that we would have sold Luiz this summer, even if we did not have PSR issues.
I don’t think that what I interpreted. He said “could”.
I’d expect us to have kept the best and sold the rest, unless something amazing came up.
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 08:32:22 AM
If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.
But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.
I suspect if we were still hanging around mid-table and not having a genius like Emery, then the North would have been done even if Heck was brought in. But with the chance of CL and the need to keep the extra revenue going for PSR etc, that does seem to be the reason for decision. Even with CL, a season (and half?) with 33k instead of 41k would have a knock on for the transfers if we are butting so close to the line.
As for the GA+, they aren't meant for repeat customers are they? They are there for the one or two time visitor who wants to see a match. The likes of Derry Villain wanting to come over for certain games etc.
Post by: Dave on September 04, 2024, 08:36:46 AM
Having read the above Athletic article - interesting comment that we would have sold Luiz this summer, even if we did not have PSR issues.
I don’t think that what I interpreted. He said “could”.
I’d expect us to have kept the best and sold the rest, unless something amazing came up.
Yup, had there been no restrictions, it's impossible to say how it pans out. Maybe we spend £300m on brilliant players and he's now desperate to stay because of how great we look. Maybe we spend £300m and he wants to leave because he's now sixth choice midfielder.
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 08:38:25 AM
Having read the above Athletic article - interesting comment that we would have sold Luiz this summer, even if we did not have PSR issues.
Doug was the big player that has been sold. Seems they are stating we could have got more money and not be rushed into a sale.
What is telling is they stated they could have sold Ramsey to fix the PSR issues but didn't want to remove one of Emery's most important players. So it seems Emery was ok with Doug going.
Quote
Monchi: "If we sold Ramsey, it (PSR) would be solved. And we could (have) because we had offers.”
Vidagany: “We needed to manage the solution of PSR but not take out one of Unai’s most important players.”
Post by: pauliewalnuts on September 04, 2024, 08:57:51 AM
These rules, though, they’re a sack of shit for the position we are in, but then again if they disappeared tomorrow, Newcastle’s owners have wealth way beyond ours and what would we think about them getting the green light to spend their way to being the new Man City?
The way the current rules are implemented are an anti competitive disaster which just reduces competitively whilst discouraging the nurture and growth of young players, but there does need to be some form of control.
There are probably ten clubs in the top flight who realistically will be either entrenched in the select six or able to compete to be there - the sky six plus us, Newcastle, Everton (I know, I know) and West Ham.
For the rest of the league the current implementation probably suits them quite well. Which is why there was no traction behind our attempt to raise the allowed losses recently.
Post by: Dave on September 04, 2024, 09:03:03 AM
These rules, though, they’re a sack of shit for the position we are in, but then again if they disappeared tomorrow, Newcastle’s owners have wealth way beyond ours and what would we think about them getting the green light to spend their way to being the new Man City?
Indeed. For all we complain about it, there's a pretty decent chance we wouldn't have got fourth at all had Champions League Newcastle had the freedom to spend £500m last summer.
Post by: LeeB on September 04, 2024, 09:06:04 AM
These rules, though, they’re a sack of shit for the position we are in, but then again if they disappeared tomorrow, Newcastle’s owners have wealth way beyond ours and what would we think about them getting the green light to spend their way to being the new Man City?
Indeed. For all we complain about it, there's a pretty decent chance we wouldn't have got fourth at all had Champions League Newcastle had the freedrom to spend £500m last summer.
This is the rub, and also this system means there's an increased emphasis on having a world class coach and recruitment team and thankfully we appear to be streets ahead of some our rivals on this front.
Post by: Toronto Villa on September 04, 2024, 09:38:44 AM
Post by: Villan82 on September 04, 2024, 09:40:55 AM
If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.
But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.
I suspect if we were still hanging around mid-table and not having a genius like Emery, then the North would have been done even if Heck was brought in. But with the chance of CL and the need to keep the extra revenue going for PSR etc, that does seem to be the reason for decision. Even with CL, a season (and half?) with 33k instead of 41k would have a knock on for the transfers if we are butting so close to the line.
As for the GA+, they aren't meant for repeat customers are they? They are there for the one or two time visitor who wants to see a match. The likes of Derry Villain wanting to come over for certain games etc.
Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.
We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
Post by: paul_e on September 04, 2024, 09:54:57 AM
Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.
We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
It would've been 33k because parts of the trinity would've been closed as well.
It doesn't mean we cannot expand our stadium, it means that for this season it would've been a mistake, it could've been the difference between signing Onana or not. Give it a year or 2 for our commercial income to improve, for our big overspending seasons to drop off and to clear up the wage bill a little and we'll be in a very different position.
As I said on another thread I wouldn't be surprised if our turnover for 23/24 is up 25-30% on the previous season and I'd hope we see an even bigger jump again this year. All combined our finances should look much healthier going into 25/26 so long as we don't have a big drop in performance on the pitch. That would then be the time to start revisiting plans for the stadium where the drop in matchday income will be easier to 'hide'.
Post by: Ads on September 04, 2024, 09:55:06 AM
Like Paulie said, the rules are a nonsense. Diaby going made sense for CL rules, but didn't move the dial much for PSR. Just garbage. Makes what we're doing even more special. If we can continue as we are, we'll eventually get to the otherside of the rules where they benefit us by keeping the hoi pilloi out.
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 09:56:24 AM
Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.
We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
I didn't mention that. PSR at the moment means that the reduced capacity fell in the same time as Grealish coming off the books. If we can increase the revenue with constant CL qualification and better off the pitch deals, then the loss of revenue for 12-18 months is less of an issue.
And tell me which other club is upgrading their stadium whilst trying to compete for top four and who don't have a better revenue then us? The closest to our current situation was Spurs a few years ago, but they happened to have a national stadium of greater capacity they could use. As you rightly point out, if we had a 40-50k option in the locality, we might have gone there temporarily.
And yes, he decided in Nov 2023. Remind me where we were in the table and where we finished the year before.
Post by: AV82EC on September 04, 2024, 10:11:23 AM
Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.
We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
It would've been 33k because parts of the trinity would've been closed as well.
It doesn't mean we cannot expand our stadium, it means that for this season it would've been a mistake, it could've been the difference between signing Onana or not. Give it a year or 2 for our commercial income to improve, for our big overspending seasons to drop off and to clear up the wage bill a little and we'll be in a very different position.
As I said on another thread I wouldn't be surprised if our turnover for 23/24 is up 25-30% on the previous season and I'd hope we see an even bigger jump again this year. All combined our finances should look much healthier going into 25/26 so long as we don't have a big drop in performance on the pitch. That would then be the time to start revisiting plans for the stadium where the drop in matchday income will be easier to 'hide'.
Spot on Paul.
Post by: Risso on September 04, 2024, 10:14:23 AM
Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.
We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
I didn't mention that. PSR at the moment means that the reduced capacity fell in the same time as Grealish coming off the books. If we can increase the revenue with constant CL qualification and better off the pitch deals, then the loss of revenue for 12-18 months is less of an issue.
And tell me which other club is upgrading their stadium whilst trying to compete for top four and who don't have a better revenue then us? The closest to our current situation was Spurs a few years ago, but they happened to have a national stadium of greater capacity they could use. As you rightly point out, if we had a 40-50k option in the locality, we might have gone there temporarily.
And yes, he decided in Nov 2023. Remind me where we were in the table and where we finished the year before.
You're allowed to factor in a reduction in matchday income for stadium redevelopment though, so PSR is largely irrelevant in that case.
Post by: Ads on September 04, 2024, 10:25:09 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 10:37:31 AM
Post by: Smithy on September 04, 2024, 10:51:28 AM
Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.
We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
I didn't mention that. PSR at the moment means that the reduced capacity fell in the same time as Grealish coming off the books. If we can increase the revenue with constant CL qualification and better off the pitch deals, then the loss of revenue for 12-18 months is less of an issue.
And tell me which other club is upgrading their stadium whilst trying to compete for top four and who don't have a better revenue then us? The closest to our current situation was Spurs a few years ago, but they happened to have a national stadium of greater capacity they could use. As you rightly point out, if we had a 40-50k option in the locality, we might have gone there temporarily.
And yes, he decided in Nov 2023. Remind me where we were in the table and where we finished the year before.
You're allowed to factor in a reduction in matchday income for stadium redevelopment though, so PSR is largely irrelevant in that case.
Is that true? We could have said to the league, "We're at 33,000, but would have sold 42,000 for every game, including in the champions league, and therefore our stadium redevelopment has cost us £X against our PSR"?
I knew the cost of the redevelopment itself was outside of PSR, but I didn't realise the potential lost match-day revenue from a redevelopment could be included in the figures as well. It puts a very different complexion on the decision to postpone.
Post by: paul_e on September 04, 2024, 10:52:22 AM
The infrastructure costs don't count. I've never seen anything about we can ignore the revenue loss of the work though but glad to be proven wrong. And how do you decide the loss? For example the NS now probably produces more revenue then it did last season.
You can definitely include it but I'm also not sure how they calculate it, my worry is that Everton have had points deductions because they included things in the stadium costs that the league decided not to accept so their is precedent for those allowed deductions to be less than the club plans and that could create problems. Personally I'd rather we had a lot more 'wiggle room' just in case, the risk of missing out on another season in europe over something silly like that just isn't worth it.
Post by: Risso on September 04, 2024, 11:19:32 AM
Post by: paul_e on September 04, 2024, 11:29:58 AM
Everton tried to take the piss by including things like salaries for sales people trying to flog hospitality in the new ground, and loan interest for loans that were nothing to do with the new stadium.
I know but it's still a cautionary tale if you're running very close to the limits. All it needs is for the league to disagree with our numbers slightly.
Post by: Dogtanian on September 04, 2024, 11:36:29 AM
If we knock it down and get dispensation for lost revenue in PSR, that would only cover what the North brings in now.
But we need that revenue to increase, not stay still, as we would still have lost the gains made over the last season and this which the PSR dispensation wouldn't consider as they hadn't happened yet.
Maximising the revenue from the North before knocking it down would make sense as you get more covered in the dispensation.
Post by: Gareth on September 04, 2024, 11:38:02 AM
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
I would still disagree on the ‘bottled this’ slightly….took a decision that might very well be a bad one or could be a good one but it was the pathetic way it was communicated and continues not explained with any clarity that was awful. Terrible leadership or intentional lack of information…either is not a good look.
My issue with the North was always and would continue to be that by the time you finish North the Witton has to be fixed too and I’m not sure the potential to grow enough capacity wise is there to justify the massive outlay for both…which is why I reluctantly concluded that I was more in favour of either sticking as is or completely twisting elsewhere.
Having said all that if we do move eventually and having seen the signing off of a tunnel that looks like a 70’s brothel please don’t put him in charge of any design decisions :-)
Post by: Dogtanian on September 04, 2024, 11:39:01 AM
No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.
I would still disagree on the ‘bottled this’ slightly….took a decision that might very well be a bad one or could be a good one but it was the pathetic way it was communicated and continues not explained with any clarity that was awful. Terrible leadership or intentional lack of information…either is not a good look.
My issue with the North was always and would continue to be that by the time you finish North the Witton has to be fixed too and I’m not sure the potential to grow enough capacity wise is there to justify the massive outlay for both…which is why I reluctantly concluded that I was more in favour of either sticking as is or completely twisting elsewhere.
Having said all that if we do move eventually and having seen the signing off of a tunnel that looks like a 70’s brothel please don’t put him in charge of any design decisions :-)
...unless of course we open a brothels?
Post by: itbrvilla on September 04, 2024, 11:42:32 AM
Post by: garyellis on September 04, 2024, 11:46:46 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 12:07:09 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 12:07:33 PM
Having said all that if we do move eventually and having seen the signing off of a tunnel that looks like a 70’s brothel please don’t put him in charge of any design decisions :-)
..unless of course we open a brothels?
Should definitely increase revenues.
Post by: algy on September 04, 2024, 12:17:03 PM
I'd assume from what's been said before that you get the share of the revenue for the stand that's been knocked down. Had we knocked down the North Stand in the summer, that's what - I'd guess about £30 a head plus the corporate seats as of the end of last season. Playing in the Champions League will no doubt increase the average ticket price, and putting in some more corporate seats (The Cells) will again raise the 'revenue lost' figure a bit higher. When our PSR position is so precarious, I think it's fairly easy to see why we wouldn't want to lock in our revenue from the North Stand for several seasons at anything other than it's highest realistically possible figure.If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.
But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.
I suspect if we were still hanging around mid-table and not having a genius like Emery, then the North would have been done even if Heck was brought in. But with the chance of CL and the need to keep the extra revenue going for PSR etc, that does seem to be the reason for decision. Even with CL, a season (and half?) with 33k instead of 41k would have a knock on for the transfers if we are butting so close to the line.
As for the GA+, they aren't meant for repeat customers are they? They are there for the one or two time visitor who wants to see a match. The likes of Derry Villain wanting to come over for certain games etc.
Basically I think we're just having to play the game with the North Stand redevelopment, although it no doubt also suits/helps us in we've got those American stadium folk in recently (Can't remember the name - is it Atairos or something like that?) so they get a bit more space to work on top of that.
EDIT: noticed that a few other folk have made this same point. I agree with them.
Post by: Risso on September 04, 2024, 12:25:13 PM
Something in that message as well that apparently out of Kamara, Buendia, Mings and Ramsey, three of them are are on the highest wages. I can understand Kamara as he was a freebie and so we could pay more as no purchase fee, but surprised a player from Norwich and one from Bournemouth are up there. Of course they might be more middling but were being shown that they still cost against FFP/PSR even when not playing. TBH, I'm surprised there isn't an injury ruling to some extent.
Well, Buendia was our record signing at the time and had had interest from Arsenal. Mings might have come from Bournemouth but since then has had two contract extensions to reflect his true worth to the team.
Post by: Drummond on September 04, 2024, 02:03:15 PM
There is no doubt that relaxing the rules would allow Newcastle immediately the ability to outspend everyone. But that’s the huge mistake made by the PL. To allow essentially a sovereign state to own a team. Nobody can compete with that. The owners of Newcastle if allowed to spend as they wish cannot really make expensive mistakes in the market because their wealth would mask all of it.
It was hard enough as it was to compete with extremely rich individuals, but even they have limits and generally aren't rich without being smart enough. Qatar and Saudi, desperate to be relevant, to be brash and bold and be and have the best of everything, don't give a shit who they trample on, or even kill, to get there. And our league has sold out to them, our previous government did the same.
We just can't afford to let them do it.
Whilst there is an imbalance between us and others (and let's not deny it, when there have been many discussions on here about the rights of other, smaller teams) it's nowhere near the difference between us and the sovereign states.
Post by: Drummond on September 04, 2024, 02:06:32 PM
Something in that message as well that apparently out of Kamara, Buendia, Mings and Ramsey, three of them are are on the highest wages. I can understand Kamara as he was a freebie and so we could pay more as no purchase fee, but surprised a player from Norwich and one from Bournemouth are up there. Of course they might be more middling but were being shown that they still cost against FFP/PSR even when not playing. TBH, I'm surprised there isn't an injury ruling to some extent.
Well, Buendia was our record signing at the time and had had interest from Arsenal. Mings might have come from Bournemouth but since then has had two contract extensions to reflect his true worth to the team.
And was our captain too of course. Kamara was on a free, and his wages will be really high. you can bet that Ramsey will negotiate himself a big contract when it's due as well.
Post by: Paul.S on September 04, 2024, 02:19:32 PM
Did anyone catch the discussion on TS this morning.
I caught the bit where it mentions Manure getting special concessions for Covid costs and Radcliffe investment costs.
They also mentioned us and the guy/expert reckons we will have a £100m deficit to sort out by June next year. So far we’ve found £25m from player trading
I assume this does not take account of CL money, increased gate receipts and the new adidas deal.
I heard it a while ago and he reckons the CL money and sponsorship deals would see us over the line next year. There is no way clubs like ours and Newcastle can sustain a challenge for regular CL football. Both clubs have the money but cannot spend it.
Post by: London Villan on September 04, 2024, 02:33:54 PM
Post by: LeeB on September 04, 2024, 02:35:44 PM
Having said all that if we do move eventually and having seen the signing off of a tunnel that looks like a 70’s brothel please don’t put him in charge of any design decisions :-)
..unless of course we open a brothels?
Should definitely increase revenues.
'Per head' revenue can be looked at differently.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on September 04, 2024, 02:40:55 PM
Having said all that if we do move eventually and having seen the signing off of a tunnel that looks like a 70’s brothel please don’t put him in charge of any design decisions :-)
..unless of course we open a brothels?
Should definitely increase revenues.
'Per head' revenue can be looked at differently.
Especially if we're recording it double-entry.
Post by: Dogtanian on September 04, 2024, 02:46:32 PM
Having said all that if we do move eventually and having seen the signing off of a tunnel that looks like a 70’s brothel please don’t put him in charge of any design decisions :-)
..unless of course we open a brothels?
Should definitely increase revenues.
'Per head' revenue can be looked at differently.
Heck would need to learn pretty quickly what a nice tunnel should look like, though.
Post by: Clampy on September 04, 2024, 02:47:51 PM
Post by: Ads on September 04, 2024, 03:02:11 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on September 04, 2024, 04:00:24 PM
There will be plenty of people who aren’t even Villa supporters who would fork out that sort of money to see a decent PL side play Bayern and Juventus.
I think that’s what is pissing me off the most.
Yeah, screw a decent amount of money out of the ST holders but then, the extra tickets, let’s not make it accessible for the match by match attenders, let’s just go for anyone willing to stump up that amount.
It’s a proper kick in the bollocks. It won’t even generate that much extra cash in the bigger picture.
Post by: astonvilla82 on September 04, 2024, 04:11:12 PM
Post by: Pat Mustard on September 04, 2024, 04:14:16 PM
They will still sell the ground out.
There will be plenty of people who aren’t even Villa supporters who would fork out that sort of money to see a decent PL side play Bayern and Juventus.
I think that’s what is pissing me off the most.
Yeah, screw a decent amount of money out of the ST holders but then, the extra tickets, let’s not make it accessible for the match by match attenders, let’s just go for anyone willing to stump up that amount.
It’s a proper kick in the bollocks. It won’t even generate that much extra cash in the bigger picture.
CL games will sell out, but the potential knock on effect will see thfousands of empty seats at some league games - it's become an either/or for us as a family, and I want to know where the people to replace us will be when we decide not to go to Bournemouth, Brentford etc.
Post by: Ads on September 04, 2024, 04:15:28 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on September 04, 2024, 04:17:41 PM
Even worse made by the fact that away support only gets charged £50,
I do wonder if the £10 got added to all the prices jut after UEFA changed the ruling to drop almost that from away fans.
Post by: London Villan on September 04, 2024, 04:37:00 PM
At what point is it too much revenue to lose? £1m £4m? £6m?
Modern football is rubbish.
Post by: Nev on September 04, 2024, 04:42:00 PM
This is all over the back pages, seems odd because we don't get that level of media coverage but then it is International Week I suppose. It does strike me that this is a deliberate ploy by the club, in agreeing to the interview with the Athletic and it's amplification elsewhere, to shine a light on how ludicrous the situation we find ourselves in, is.
Not that I can see it making any difference...
Ah, now I see why.
Post by: purpletrousers on September 04, 2024, 04:57:20 PM
This is all over the back pages, seems odd because we don't get that level of media coverage but then it is International Week I suppose. It does strike me that this is a deliberate ploy by the club, in agreeing to the interview with the Athletic and it's amplification elsewhere, to shine a light on how ludicrous the situation we find ourselves in, is.
Not that I can see it making any difference...
Ah, now I see why.
Hmm. Unless they are playing a very interesting hand to deliberately shock everyone, flag up the unfairness of FFP and then roll the prices back, this is a cock up.
It's a cock up.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on September 04, 2024, 05:20:51 PM
The infrastructure costs don't count. I've never seen anything about we can ignore the revenue loss of the work though but glad to be proven wrong. And how do you decide the loss? For example the NS now probably produces more revenue then it did last season.
Maybe that is part of the Heck masterplan. Get the revenue per seat up as high as possible then when we lose a stand the ‘allowable offset’ is a decent figure rather than based on the original numbers.
Post by: Villan82 on September 04, 2024, 05:26:04 PM
I hope we have a climb down. Shave £20 quid off the season ticket prices and £40 off the non-ST.
Nice to be on your side in a debate again!
But this was always the risk when they pulled the plug on the new stand. If more bums on seats was no longer the answer medium term then they were always going to attempt to squeeze more out of what is there. It isn't nice.
Post by: Smithy on September 04, 2024, 05:28:28 PM
Personally, I'm WAAAAY down the list in terms of being able to qualify to buy one, and I'd snap your hand off tomorrow if I was able to get one.
Post by: Mister E on September 04, 2024, 05:49:07 PM
Maybe that is part of the Heck masterplan. Get the revenue per seat up as high as possible then when we lose a stand the ‘allowable offset’ is a decent figure rather than based on the original numbers.Yes, I think this could be part of the thinking.
However, the effect could be seen at the Arse game where the GA+ areas were punctuated by a fair few empty seats; not a good look and wasteful for people who do actually want to go to the game.
Heck & Co are clearly trying to maximise this current period of high demand: the risk is that a couple of mediocre seasons will see the whole edifice come tumbling down, and the degree of goodwill amongst the core of our support will be at such a low ebb that we could spiral downwards. He'll be operating on short-term objectives, which is why he's driving a medium-to-high risk approach on pricing. The club would probably be better-served with an approach which rewards the core support and yet still maximises revenue from the occasional visitor.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 04, 2024, 07:07:57 PM
Is that allowed with FFP?
Even if we are good for FFP next season with CL money what happens season after of we are are not in CL?
the system punishes you for being in the Cl it seems as you have to pay more for better players but if u dnt have the CL money you are fucked. Im pretty sure eventually this is all going to fall apart
Post by: Risso on September 06, 2024, 05:18:10 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 06, 2024, 05:42:48 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 06, 2024, 05:43:02 PM
Apparently we've just been fined 60K by UEFA for submitting our financial information late.
Some real complicated cooking going on with these books of ours isn’t there mate?
Selling the youth for PSR, while discarding the deadwood for SCR. Seems to me like cancelling contracts (Courinho, Donk) would solve the latter but adversely impact the former with crystallised losses.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 06, 2024, 06:37:00 PM
Apparently we've just been fined 60K by UEFA for submitting our financial information late..
Yeah its legit its on sky sports wtf is going on at our club
Post by: purpletrousers on September 06, 2024, 07:07:58 PM
Rinse a couple of thousand out of disabled fans, waste 60K with UEFA. Top work everyone.
That was exactly my thought. Cause suffering, either £ hardship, loss of being able to go or possibly physical suffering from parking elsewhere, the drop X times the amount by being disorganised. Proud to be a Villa fan. Until recently.
Post by: Sdwbvf on September 07, 2024, 05:10:43 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on September 07, 2024, 05:23:26 PM
I guess it depends how much info they have to submit.
Post by: Zouch Villa on September 07, 2024, 05:35:00 PM
If the financial year ends in June, would it be normal for a £200-300m company to have finalised its accounts by August?Absolutely.
I guess it depends how much info they have to submit.
Us bean counters like to make sure things are as accurate as possible, so its not unusual for accounts to take 6-9 months to finalise. Particularly when there may be various judgements/treatments that require close scrutiny of an auditor.
Post by: garyellis on September 07, 2024, 05:55:34 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on September 07, 2024, 08:46:18 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on September 07, 2024, 08:58:16 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on September 07, 2024, 09:20:59 PM
Would our deadline for UEFA have changed given we changed our accounting year end date?No
Post by: KevinGage on September 07, 2024, 09:57:59 PM
Tens of thousands of people just paid £355 for an Oasis ticket, when they thought they were queuing for one at half that price. Much as I hate it, I suspect we'll have no trouble at all selling them all at those prices.
Personally, I'm WAAAAY down the list in terms of being able to qualify to buy one, and I'd snap your hand off tomorrow if I was able to get one.
Someone might always pay for it, aye.
The danger with this shit is we'll have daytripping herberts in the Villa end like Citeh had a few years back. Prats smiling, laughing and taking photos after Benzema had scored against them.
Post by: OCD on September 09, 2024, 10:51:34 AM
Next summer my guess is kamara or duran will be the sacrificial lamb to help witn FFP
You keep saying this but a) from next season, the league falls in line with Europe and it becomes about the percentage of salary and amortisation to revenue and b) you assume that we're going to have difficulties every season which hasn't been the case before this summer.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 09, 2024, 08:17:17 PM
Next summer my guess is kamara or duran will be the sacrificial lamb to help witn FFP
You keep saying this but a) from next season, the league falls in line with Europe and it becomes about the percentage of salary and amortisation to revenue and b) you assume that we're going to have difficulties every season which hasn't been the case before this summer.
Lets be honest none of us know the situation with the finances. None of us realised how bad it was until recently after vidaganys comments so you would assume with that in mind new rules or not someone will have to be sacrificed esp of we do not qualify for CL. I think its completely unrealistic tk think otherwise
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on September 11, 2024, 07:25:12 AM
Post by: rob_bridge on September 11, 2024, 08:06:01 AM
Next summer my guess is kamara or duran will be the sacrificial lamb to help witn FFP
You keep saying this but a) from next season, the league falls in line with Europe and it becomes about the percentage of salary and amortisation to revenue and b) you assume that we're going to have difficulties every season which hasn't been the case before this summer.
Lets be honest none of us know the situation with the finances. None of us realised how bad it was until recently after vidaganys comments so you would assume with that in mind new rules or not someone will have to be sacrificed esp of we do not qualify for CL. I think its completely unrealistic tk think otherwise
Well we hopefully won't have spent millions sacking a crap manager and a bundle of coaching staff as we did with Gerard. We will have 10s millions more income generated from all streams so it all depends on how much the new contracts for the premium players set us back.
Post by: eamonn on September 11, 2024, 03:17:59 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on September 11, 2024, 04:13:25 PM
Next summer my guess is kamara or duran will be the sacrificial lamb to help witn FFP
You keep saying this but a) from next season, the league falls in line with Europe and it becomes about the percentage of salary and amortisation to revenue and b) you assume that we're going to have difficulties every season which hasn't been the case before this summer.
Lets be honest none of us know the situation with the finances. None of us realised how bad it was until recently after vidaganys comments so you would assume with that in mind new rules or not someone will have to be sacrificed esp of we do not qualify for CL. I think its completely unrealistic tk think otherwise
Well we hopefully won't have spent millions sacking a crap manager and a bundle of coaching staff as we did with Gerard. We will have 10s millions more income generated from all streams so it all depends on how much the new contracts for the premium players set us back.
I hope so rob. Im hoping this summer we wont have so many shackles on us. As it appears we wanted to spend a lot more but because of those shackles irs restricted what we can do
Post by: OCD on September 11, 2024, 07:34:33 PM
Next summer my guess is kamara or duran will be the sacrificial lamb to help witn FFP
You keep saying this but a) from next season, the league falls in line with Europe and it becomes about the percentage of salary and amortisation to revenue and b) you assume that we're going to have difficulties every season which hasn't been the case before this summer.
Lets be honest none of us know the situation with the finances. None of us realised how bad it was until recently after vidaganys comments so you would assume with that in mind new rules or not someone will have to be sacrificed esp of we do not qualify for CL. I think its completely unrealistic tk think otherwise
Correct, none of us know the position (although Heck has stated a goal of the business bringing in an extra £50m each year) so why assume that we'll have to sell a first-teamer every year to satisfy financial rules (that are changing to align with Uefa's salary cap) and keep posting about it at every opportunity?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on September 11, 2024, 07:43:17 PM
That's one of the many reasons why screwing an extra £20 out of fans pisses me off so much.
Post by: Demitri_C on September 11, 2024, 07:58:09 PM
Next summer my guess is kamara or duran will be the sacrificial lamb to help witn FFP
You keep saying this but a) from next season, the league falls in line with Europe and it becomes about the percentage of salary and amortisation to revenue and b) you assume that we're going to have difficulties every season which hasn't been the case before this summer.
Lets be honest none of us know the situation with the finances. None of us realised how bad it was until recently after vidaganys comments so you would assume with that in mind new rules or not someone will have to be sacrificed esp of we do not qualify for CL. I think its completely unrealistic tk think otherwise
Correct, none of us know the position (although Heck has stated a goal of the business bringing in an extra £50m each year) so why assume that we'll have to sell a first-teamer every year to satisfy financial rules (that are changing to align with Uefa's salary cap) and keep posting about it at every opportunity?
I am not posting it at every opportunity. If someone quotes me i will respond to it. This is a football forum after all and various subjects are repeated.
Back on subject. Hecks going to rack in that 50m with all the additional costs in terms of season tickets but i think his plan is also dependent on regularly qualifying for Cl. If we dont get tgis year i think we are ok but if we dont the year after then im not sure how we dont generate extra revenue without selling players.
Its essential if we miss out on CL we keep key players like Newcastle have managed to
Post by: Ads on September 11, 2024, 08:09:18 PM
Deduct these ****** points now.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on September 11, 2024, 08:11:48 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on September 11, 2024, 08:39:45 PM
Yanited with a £113m loss last year (23/24). £28m in 22/23, £115m in 21/22. £254.7m loss over three years.
Deduct these ****** points now.
One rule for them and one for us
Post by: VillaTim on September 11, 2024, 08:42:29 PM
they'll have nne FFP related stuff in those numbers just like we didYanited with a £113m loss last year (23/24). £28m in 22/23, £115m in 21/22. £254.7m loss over three years.
Deduct these ****** points now.
One rule for them and one for us
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 11, 2024, 09:45:10 PM
they'll have nne FFP related stuff in those numbers just like we didYanited with a £113m loss last year (23/24). £28m in 22/23, £115m in 21/22. £254.7m loss over three years.
Deduct these ****** points now.
One rule for them and one for us
Sad but true.
Post by: Stu on September 16, 2024, 09:30:06 PM
Post by: Beard82 on September 16, 2024, 09:34:08 PM
Aston Villa fans’ lame resistance to ticket price greed lets hierarchy off the hook (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/16/aston-villa-champions-league-ticket-prices-football-fans)Wow - harsh
Post by: Sexual Ealing on September 16, 2024, 09:34:24 PM
Aston Villa fans’ lame resistance to ticket price greed lets hierarchy off the hook (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/16/aston-villa-champions-league-ticket-prices-football-fans)
He's absolutely right.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on September 16, 2024, 09:42:20 PM
Aston Villa fans’ lame resistance to ticket price greed lets hierarchy off the hook (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/16/aston-villa-champions-league-ticket-prices-football-fans)
He's absolutely right.
Yeah, maybe harsh but completely true.
Post by: astonvilla82 on September 16, 2024, 09:47:36 PM
Aston Villa fans’ lame resistance to ticket price greed lets hierarchy off the hook (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/16/aston-villa-champions-league-ticket-prices-football-fans)The guardian newspaper that absolutely loves the Villa
Post by: Demitri_C on September 16, 2024, 09:51:12 PM
Post by: rob_bridge on September 16, 2024, 10:01:59 PM
Tier 1 opposition, history, romance, hype......
They could have sold the ground twice even at those prices.
We'll go less frequently when we are shit again - usually the way.
Post by: paul_e on September 16, 2024, 10:11:49 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on September 16, 2024, 10:14:22 PM
He has a point but why is it only Villa fans being singled out? Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea and West Ham have had GA tickets going for over £100 for a few years and I don't recall seeing their fans being called out as 'lame' for allowing it.
Because it's happening right now at Villa. You may have noticed a comment or two on here about it.
Post by: London Villan on September 17, 2024, 12:55:49 PM
I can imagine the visits of Bournemouth, Palace and in particular Brentford on a Tuesday a couple of weeks before Christmas, will provide more evidence they have pissed people off. Let alone the gate for the Bologna game...
Post by: Dave on September 17, 2024, 01:41:37 PM
The active protest fell flat - but the fact there are still tickets available for Wolves might be evidence of the impact the prices are having.
Don't think there are many / any regular tickets available for Wolves are there?
Post by: London Villan on September 17, 2024, 02:26:50 PM
Post by: john2710 on September 17, 2024, 04:25:38 PM
Post by: Dave on September 17, 2024, 04:26:38 PM
I can't see any GA tickets left for Wolves, only GA+. Might change nearer the date if resales become available.
Same. Loads of GA+, no standard ones.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 26, 2024, 05:58:28 PM
As ever, the 25-man squad limit is the friend of competitiveness.
Post by: Ads on September 26, 2024, 06:01:47 PM
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on September 26, 2024, 06:05:33 PM
Post by: paul_e on September 26, 2024, 06:05:50 PM
I didn't think the Judgment was until March?
It isn't all the noise today is because there was a vote scheduled to ratify some aspects of the new linked party sponsorship rules and it got cancelled, some people are speculating that it's because the league know they're going to lose that specific case so they decided the vote wasn't worth having. It might be true but it's a bit of a stretch.
Post by: Ads on September 26, 2024, 06:11:43 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 26, 2024, 06:18:26 PM
I didn't think the Judgment was until March?
It isn't all the noise today is because there was a vote scheduled to ratify some aspects of the new linked party sponsorship rules and it got cancelled, some people are speculating that it's because the league know they're going to lose that specific case so they decided the vote wasn't worth having. It might be true but it's a bit of a stretch.
Yes, that’s the reason people are speculating that MC 115 have won.
Post by: cdbearsfan on September 27, 2024, 12:19:03 PM
Post by: Ads on September 27, 2024, 12:27:47 PM
Post by: dcdavecollett on September 28, 2024, 01:02:38 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on September 28, 2024, 01:34:40 AM
To state the bleedin' obvious, if they can do it, why can't everyone else?
If they can, and it’s established in law, so can everyone else. That’s the point.
Post by: DB on October 07, 2024, 02:35:11 PM
Not related to the 115 charges.
Post by: Martyn Smith on October 07, 2024, 02:57:34 PM
So looks like PL's sponsorship rules are un-lawful, Citeh are claiming victory in suing the Prem.
Not related to the 115 charges.
Yep, one company under the control of their owners can legally sponsor another, ie Manchester City FC.
So, big business wins again and Man C have been handed a nice way around FFP. Wonderful
Of course, those of us opposed to all of this are just jealous of MCFC's success...
Post by: Monty on October 07, 2024, 03:00:36 PM
Post by: Martyn Smith on October 07, 2024, 03:01:39 PM
The active protest fell flat - but the fact there are still tickets available for Wolves might be evidence of the impact the prices are having.
I can imagine the visits of Bournemouth, Palace and in particular Brentford on a Tuesday a couple of weeks before Christmas, will provide more evidence they have pissed people off. Let alone the gate for the Bologna game...
What pissed me off was that there were 3 seats in the UH marked at £44 each for Wolves. OK I'll go for that, I thought. However, clicking through revealed that they were available at a corporate £140 option only.
Why can't they make it a choice. Have the seat for £44 with the option to upgrade if you feel like spoiling yourself?...
Post by: Martyn Smith on October 07, 2024, 03:04:38 PM
Couple of hundred in A5. Plus loads of GA+ for pretty much every option.
Yep, at £72 a pop. Just for a seat. Against Wolves. Fuck. That.
Post by: ozzjim on October 07, 2024, 03:07:50 PM
Man City seem to have won their case allowing owners to sponsor the team at ridiculously inflated prices. Can we just rename the Terrace View "The NSWE Terrace View" now and pay ourselves a billion quid for the privilege?
I'm sure it will be tightened again, but I would imagine there will be a very short window to do just that. Newcastle will be salivating no doubt, but we should be jumping all over it too.
Post by: lovejoy on October 07, 2024, 03:15:44 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on October 07, 2024, 03:25:42 PM
If this stands, as reported above, then its game over for FFP surely?
I know it is selfish but if that is the case and the wealthiest clubs can spend away then at least we have a pair that can hold their own (against other owners not Oil states of course)
Post by: lovejoy on October 07, 2024, 03:29:37 PM
Post by: DB on October 07, 2024, 03:40:02 PM
If this stands, as reported above, then its game over for FFP surely?
Yep, what’s the point.
Where is all this going to end?
Post by: Footy-Vill on October 07, 2024, 03:44:09 PM
They sold nearly 150m worth?
Post by: aj2k77 on October 07, 2024, 03:54:31 PM
I don't like Man City somehow made over 110million in transfers this summer. The most in the league.
They sold nearly 150m worth?
Alvarez and Cancelo and ripped Southampton off with some kid for an overinflated fee because he's from Man City. I despise them more than Man Utd. Every Man City fan I've met under the age of 30 is a FIFA playing, fantasy football wanker who treats it all like a video game.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on October 07, 2024, 03:58:35 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on October 07, 2024, 04:25:34 PM
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2024/10/is-this-end-of-footballs-transfer.html
Post by: Somniloquism on October 07, 2024, 05:06:55 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on October 07, 2024, 10:30:05 PM
From 30 years ago and not far off the mark really.
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 06:23:33 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on October 08, 2024, 07:30:50 AM
Newcastle are going to be licking their lips at this news. Then its game over for everyone else
You don’t understand the judgement do you?
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 07:54:05 AM
Newcastle are going to be licking their lips at this news. Then its game over for everyone else
You don’t understand the judgement do you?
I meant in terms of being able to pay the best lawyers to get winning cases against the premier league like citeh appear to be doing
Post by: LeonW on October 08, 2024, 07:54:13 AM
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 08:17:21 AM
Hopefully citeh are not as invincible as they think
Post by: Percy McCarthy on October 08, 2024, 09:14:44 AM
Newcastle are going to be licking their lips at this news. Then its game over for everyone else
You don’t understand the judgement do you?
I meant in terms of being able to pay the best lawyers to get winning cases against the premier league like citeh appear to be doing
But they didn’t really win, so not sure how you work that out.
Post by: DB on October 08, 2024, 09:25:24 AM
Im hoping the othee charges go against city. Honestly if nothing comes of it we need to stop abiding by FFP because all your lawyers would have to argue is that one club got away with it but another didnt so its discrimination against the club.
Hopefully citeh are not as invincible as they think
The 'other' charges are separate from this announcement. City bought this case in themselves. The 115 from the PL are still on-going. Just in case it was not clear...
Post by: Risso on October 08, 2024, 09:29:54 AM
Post by: LeeB on October 08, 2024, 09:32:16 AM
From a quick look at the tribunal decision, it looks like Man City 'won' on a couple of very specific points where the Premier League didn't act fairly, eg giving Man City the chance to defend certain transactions. On the whole though, the Premier League won on the wider points and the APT rules remain in place.
Yes it would seem they bought the case to attempt to open up a crack in the other case against them, and have actually failed.
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 09:35:38 AM
Newcastle are going to be licking their lips at this news. Then its game over for everyone else
You don’t understand the judgement do you?
I meant in terms of being able to pay the best lawyers to get winning cases against the premier league like citeh appear to be doing
But they didn’t really win, so not sure how you work that out.
They didnt really lose either though
Post by: LeeS on October 08, 2024, 09:41:42 AM
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 09:43:22 AM
Presumably all those clubs with massive debts owed ti their owners are worried today? I notice that this doesn’t apply to us.
I think so. But i bet they will all challenge it and ein on appeal.
Post by: olaftab on October 08, 2024, 09:49:05 AM
They didnt really lose either thoughThey did though as other than the two exceptions the rules have been validated applicable.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on October 08, 2024, 09:49:37 AM
Newcastle are going to be licking their lips at this news. Then its game over for everyone else
You don’t understand the judgement do you?
I meant in terms of being able to pay the best lawyers to get winning cases against the premier league like citeh appear to be doing
But they didn’t really win, so not sure how you work that out.
They didnt really lose either though
They lost on 6 out of 8, including the big one.
Have you bothered to read any explainers?
Post by: Risso on October 08, 2024, 10:03:39 AM
They didnt really lose either though
They did on everything that matters.
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 10:05:32 AM
Newcastle are going to be licking their lips at this news. Then its game over for everyone else
You don’t understand the judgement do you?
I meant in terms of being able to pay the best lawyers to get winning cases against the premier league like citeh appear to be doing
But they didn’t really win, so not sure how you work that out.
They didnt really lose either though
They lost on 6 out of 8, including the big one.
Have you bothered to read any explainers?
Do we know if they plan to appeal?
Post by: jon collett on October 08, 2024, 12:43:43 PM
Presumably all those clubs with massive debts owed ti their owners are worried today? I notice that this doesn’t apply to us.
From the table I saw of shareholder loans we were pretty low at 10 million.
About 14th in the list. Arsenal had 200 million.
It is strange how Arsenal went from really tight under Wenger after the stadium move to big spenders in very recent times
Post by: Drummond on October 08, 2024, 12:52:15 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on October 08, 2024, 01:02:00 PM
From a quick look at the tribunal decision, it looks like Man City 'won' on a couple of very specific points where the Premier League didn't act fairly, eg giving Man City the chance to defend certain transactions. On the whole though, the Premier League won on the wider points and the APT rules remain in place.I read a review this morning which suggested that whilst the PL did win most of the arguments, city have opened the door on the restrictions of trade angle and will serve them in the defence of or to counter any decision in respect of the 115 charges.
The worrying thing now is that the Oil States with unlimited amounts of money will continue to drive their agenda.
Post by: Chip Butty 111 on October 08, 2024, 01:05:02 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on October 08, 2024, 01:11:51 PM
Unfortunately City will never admit any wrongdoing, it's how they operate. Twisting every situation to make them look as if they are in the right. I have little faith that they will be punished properly if found guilty with the 115 case.They will immediately appeal any sanction and drag this out until they exhaust the process, the clubs are concerned that the costs in continually fighting Citeh are huge.
Post by: Chip Butty 111 on October 08, 2024, 01:17:29 PM
Sad but true unfortunately.Unfortunately City will never admit any wrongdoing, it's how they operate. Twisting every situation to make them look as if they are in the right. I have little faith that they will be punished properly if found guilty with the 115 case.They will immediately appeal any sanction and drag this out until they exhaust the process, the clubs are concerned that the costs in continually fighting Citeh are huge.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on October 08, 2024, 01:22:54 PM
I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
18 , take Chelsea with them
Post by: Nev on October 08, 2024, 01:28:09 PM
I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
The problem with that is the clubs all want to be Stockport 115, including our own, so that's where it falls down.
All the riches and all the trophies in the world and you'd find more happiness amongst 9 year olds winning a Sunday morning game.
Post by: tomd2103 on October 08, 2024, 01:32:42 PM
I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
18 , take Chelsea with them
16 - not forgetting Manchester United and Liverpool.
Post by: Drummond on October 08, 2024, 02:27:30 PM
I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
The problem with that is the clubs all want to be Stockport 115, including our own, so that's where it falls down.
All the riches and all the trophies in the world and you'd find more happiness amongst 9 year olds winning a Sunday morning game.
Oh I'm sure, it's just that our U10 team can't win a game!
Post by: Chip Butty 111 on October 08, 2024, 02:50:27 PM
Post by: Risso on October 08, 2024, 03:40:18 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on October 08, 2024, 04:20:33 PM
I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
The problem with that is the clubs all want to be Stockport 115, including our own, so that's where it falls down.
All the riches and all the trophies in the world and you'd find more happiness amongst 9 year olds winning a Sunday morning game.
As I've said more than once, some of the best football supporters I've ever met were City fans, particularly the ones I got to know through fanzine. And they in particular became some of the biggest twats.
Post by: The Edge on October 08, 2024, 05:54:04 PM
Just a little dip into the Blue Moon forum tells you all you need to know about the attitude of City fans.They somehow see themselves as victims.I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
The problem with that is the clubs all want to be Stockport 115, including our own, so that's where it falls down.
All the riches and all the trophies in the world and you'd find more happiness amongst 9 year olds winning a Sunday morning game.
As I've said more than once, some of the best football supporters I've ever met were City fans, particularly the ones I got to know through fanzine. And they in particular became some of the biggest twats.
Post by: Chip Butty 111 on October 08, 2024, 06:55:19 PM
Post by: Exeter 77 on October 08, 2024, 06:58:04 PM
Post by: Meanwood Villa on October 08, 2024, 06:59:44 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on October 08, 2024, 07:04:55 PM
I wonder if the amount they are spending on lawyers counts towards their FFP (I know it doesn't but it would be funny if it did).The cost of legal action is an allowable expense, so it does.
Post by: Alex77 on October 08, 2024, 07:18:13 PM
I just wish that 19 clubs had a vote, set up a new league and fucked them off.
The problem with that is the clubs all want to be Stockport 115, including our own, so that's where it falls down.
All the riches and all the trophies in the world and you'd find more happiness amongst 9 year olds winning a Sunday morning game.
Oh I'm sure, it's just that our U10 team can't win a game!
Sack the manager!
Post by: Demitri_C on October 08, 2024, 07:23:33 PM
I wonder if the amount they are spending on lawyers counts towards their FFP (I know it doesn't but it would be funny if it did).The cost of legal action is an allowable expense, so it does.
Thats good then at least
Post by: Chip Butty 111 on October 08, 2024, 07:41:47 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on October 08, 2024, 10:49:20 PM
I wonder if the amount they are spending on lawyers counts towards their FFP (I know it doesn't but it would be funny if it did).The cost of legal action is an allowable expense, so it does.
Thats good then at least
I think you’ve missed the point again mate. It means they can knock it off their losses.
Post by: Smirker on October 08, 2024, 11:49:31 PM
When they were 'unwilling to co-operate' years ago with the investigation, they should have been relegated there and then.They have run rings around UEFA and the Premier League with smoke and mirrors nonsense for what seems like forever.
This. Co-operate or fuck off.
Post by: Demitri_C on October 09, 2024, 04:39:03 AM
I wonder if the amount they are spending on lawyers counts towards their FFP (I know it doesn't but it would be funny if it did).The cost of legal action is an allowable expense, so it does.
Thats good then at least
I think you’ve missed the point again mate. It means they can knock it off their losses.
Thanks percy. Seems very complicated
Post by: Villatillidie25 on October 09, 2024, 02:48:37 PM
When they were 'unwilling to co-operate' years ago with the investigation, they should have been relegated there and then.They have run rings around UEFA and the Premier League with smoke and mirrors nonsense for what seems like forever.
This. Co-operate or fuck off.
while I agree with the principal, 35 of the 115 charges are relating to City not cooperating, which they're contesting so i'm not sure they could be binned off until after the hearing given a third of the argument is over whether they cooperated or not...
Post by: ChicagoLion on October 09, 2024, 07:42:25 PM
I have seen this stuff in the real world.When they were 'unwilling to co-operate' years ago with the investigation, they should have been relegated there and then.They have run rings around UEFA and the Premier League with smoke and mirrors nonsense for what seems like forever.
This. Co-operate or fuck off.
while I agree with the principal, 35 of the 115 charges are relating to City not cooperating, which they're contesting so i'm not sure they could be binned off until after the hearing given a third of the argument is over whether they cooperated or not...
We asked you to provide the following information.
But we didn't have that information so we didn't provide it.
Post by: Tuscans on January 06, 2025, 05:44:06 PM
"Leicester are most likely to fail. Chelsea’s position is subject to their intra group asset sales (Women’s team and property) before 30 June ‘24. Must assume Villa, Forest, Newcastle and Everton fixed issue on 30 June. Question outstanding on Everton interest case though.
Any charges announced next Monday or Tuesday.
Underlying 23/24 accounts to be gradually released over the next 3 months."
Post by: Demitri_C on January 06, 2025, 06:25:00 PM
Its ridiculous
Post by: Steve67 on January 06, 2025, 06:46:07 PM
Post by: Gareth on January 06, 2025, 08:28:01 PM
Does the fact that Everton have new owners make any difference to them?
Think the debts to Moshiri were all settled or written off so long term yes, not sure how much difference it makes for this transfer window though.
Still think that is where Rashford ends the month on loan…their new owners have to find a forward player or they could still easily get sucked in and doesn’t seem any way back at Newton Heath.
Post by: rob_bridge on January 06, 2025, 09:15:38 PM
These bollocks rules that help chelsea.
Its ridiculous
Chelsea should suffer a 1000 point deduction ammortised over the next 20 years.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 06, 2025, 09:21:31 PM
These bollocks rules that help chelsea.
Its ridiculous
Let’s not throw bricks in glass houses. We’ve benefited from the same rules as well when we sold VP.
Post by: LeeB on January 06, 2025, 09:24:15 PM
These bollocks rules that help chelsea.
Its ridiculous
Let’s not throw bricks in glass houses. We’ve benefited from the same rules as well when we sold VP.
As long as the people at the glass house don't know where you live, you should be OK.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 06, 2025, 09:34:37 PM
These bollocks rules that help chelsea.
Its ridiculous
Let’s not throw bricks in glass houses. We’ve benefited from the same rules as well when we sold VP.
We sold hotels and used the womens team to help us with FFP?
Post by: lovejoy on January 06, 2025, 09:59:44 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 06, 2025, 10:22:54 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on January 06, 2025, 10:28:59 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 06, 2025, 10:58:06 PM
Didn’t Derby do similar but massively overvalued the ground so they got done.
Yes, we did it at fair market value. They did it at a massively inflated price.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 07, 2025, 07:57:20 AM
Post by: Beard82 on January 07, 2025, 08:29:46 AM
Hotels, fine. A bit iffy but they are property owned. Selling the women's team, not sure how that works though? Surely they are a brand new team then and should be kicked out the WPL.Isn’t that just like someone else buying Everton?
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 07, 2025, 12:21:19 PM
Part of the idea of PSR was supposedly to stop unscrupulous owners failing clubs and certainly at the lower level of the pyramid yet if that lots hedge fund decided they’d had enough today that’s exactly the position they’d be in.
Farce I tells ya.
Post by: Smithy on January 07, 2025, 12:28:09 PM
As regards the farce that is PSR and I don’t like drawing comparisons with that lot. However, the noses are allowed to spend pretty much whatever they want in League 1 on a turnover of less than £30m. Yet as we reach £400m we cannot buy players unless we offload or if we can buy players we are back shopping in Tesco as opposed to Waitrose.
Part of the idea of PSR was supposedly to stop unscrupulous owners failing clubs and certainly at the lower level of the pyramid yet if that lots hedge fund decided they’d had enough today that’s exactly the position they’d be in.
Farce I tells ya.
The rules in League One and League Two are changing next year so it won't be as easy for rich owners to pick clubs they think they can grow from the lower leagues and then throw a bit of money at it.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 12:54:51 PM
As regards the farce that is PSR and I don’t like drawing comparisons with that lot. However, the noses are allowed to spend pretty much whatever they want in League 1 on a turnover of less than £30m. Yet as we reach £400m we cannot buy players unless we offload or if we can buy players we are back shopping in Tesco as opposed to Waitrose.
Part of the idea of PSR was supposedly to stop unscrupulous owners failing clubs and certainly at the lower level of the pyramid yet if that lots hedge fund decided they’d had enough today that’s exactly the position they’d be in.
Farce I tells ya.
The rules in League One and League Two are changing next year so it won't be as easy for rich owners to pick clubs they think they can grow from the lower leagues and then throw a bit of money at it.
Shame they waited so long to implement this as im almost certain blose would have struggled had they not been allowed to spend what they want.
Kippas got a lot of valid points there
Post by: usav on January 07, 2025, 01:22:06 PM
Post by: Dave on January 07, 2025, 01:23:06 PM
Kieran Maguire was on The Overlap today and has basically said one of the Premier League clubs might be in shit when the latest set of accounts are released this month. He wouldn't say who, except it wasn't a team in 'red'.
Pretty sure that it's known to be Leicester.
Post by: paul_e on January 07, 2025, 01:59:51 PM
West Ham and Everton are the other 2 that'll are likely to be running it tight.
Post by: Toronto Villa on January 07, 2025, 02:50:04 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 02:51:55 PM
We should do what Forest did. Bought a load of players. Broke the rules. Got fined and docked points. Stayed up. Kept the players and are now benefitting from breaking the rules.
Said this as well got laughed at by a few posters. The whole FFP is a mockery
Post by: Clampy on January 07, 2025, 02:52:35 PM
We should do what Forest did. Bought a load of players. Broke the rules. Got fined and docked points. Stayed up. Kept the players and are now benefitting from breaking the rules.
Knowing our luck, we'd get demoted to the Championship if we tried it.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 02:58:21 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 07, 2025, 03:01:56 PM
Post by: Dave on January 07, 2025, 03:02:13 PM
Forest got docked 4 points for breaching by 34.5m. Lets say ours was double at 69m that would be a 8 point deduction. I think we would have more or close to 8 points more and have a better side.
That's not how it works. Forest claimed that it should be all okay because they sold Johnson to cover it, just slightly outside the correct accounting period. Which obviously isn't okay, but they were able to claim that they were within the spirit of the rules even if the dates weren't quite right. So their punishment wasn't that bad.
If we'd said "these rules are dumb, we're ignoring them and just taking the punishment" then we'd have had the book thrown at us. Which is why we didn't, and no other club is.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 07, 2025, 03:22:22 PM
Forest got docked 4 points for breaching by 34.5m. Lets say ours was double at 69m that would be a 8 point deduction. I think we would have more or close to 8 points more and have a better side.
That's not how it works. Forest claimed that it should be all okay because they sold Johnson to cover it, just slightly outside the correct accounting period. Which obviously isn't okay, but they were able to claim that they were within the spirit of the rules even if the dates weren't quite right. So their punishment wasn't that bad.
If we'd said "these rules are dumb, we're ignoring them and just taking the punishment" then we'd have had the book thrown at us. Which is why we didn't, and no other club is.
It's also another reason why the rules aren't fit for purpose. The clubs agreed that guidelines or rules for punishment weren't required when they established them, meaning you have these ridiculous hearings that go on to decide what the punishment should be, wasting time and money.
Post by: Beard82 on January 07, 2025, 03:26:32 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on January 07, 2025, 03:42:44 PM
We should do what Forest did. Bought a load of players. Broke the rules. Got fined and docked points. Stayed up. Kept the players and are now benefitting from breaking the rules.
Said this as well got laughed at by a few posters. The whole FFP is a mockery
It’s still a laughable suggestion (I’m not convinced Toronto is 100% serious), they don’t just give points based on how much you’ve gone over. We’d have been punished for just ignoring the rules, Forest argued they just got the timing slightly wrong.
Edit - I see Dave has made the point better than I have
Post by: lovejoy on January 07, 2025, 05:19:34 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 06:35:17 PM
Forest got docked 4 points for breaching by 34.5m. Lets say ours was double at 69m that would be a 8 point deduction. I think we would have more or close to 8 points more and have a better side.
That's not how it works. Forest claimed that it should be all okay because they sold Johnson to cover it, just slightly outside the correct accounting period. Which obviously isn't okay, but they were able to claim that they were within the spirit of the rules even if the dates weren't quite right. So their punishment wasn't that bad.
If we'd said "these rules are dumb, we're ignoring them and just taking the punishment" then we'd have had the book thrown at us. Which is why we didn't, and no other club is.
Thats why you have good lawyers 👍
Post by: Toronto Villa on January 07, 2025, 07:07:08 PM
We should do what Forest did. Bought a load of players. Broke the rules. Got fined and docked points. Stayed up. Kept the players and are now benefitting from breaking the rules.
Said this as well got laughed at by a few posters. The whole FFP is a mockery
It’s still a laughable suggestion (I’m not convinced Toronto is 100% serious), they don’t just give points based on how much you’ve gone over. We’d have been punished for just ignoring the rules, Forest argued they just got the timing slightly wrong.
Edit - I see Dave has made the point better than I have
Nah we just need to be clever about it and high priced lawyers to find loopholes and drag it out. Making a mockery out of what is already a mockery. I’m not being serious, but the rules are flawed. The fact that Man City and Chelsea have done what they have and yes, Forest to a degree means that for minor penalties they get to keep their better or best players. We end up having to sell Doug and bring in players, most who are on loan or below the needed standard to keep us moving forward.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on January 07, 2025, 07:21:47 PM
Post by: Dave on January 07, 2025, 07:32:48 PM
Forest got docked 4 points for breaching by 34.5m. Lets say ours was double at 69m that would be a 8 point deduction. I think we would have more or close to 8 points more and have a better side.
That's not how it works. Forest claimed that it should be all okay because they sold Johnson to cover it, just slightly outside the correct accounting period. Which obviously isn't okay, but they were able to claim that they were within the spirit of the rules even if the dates weren't quite right. So their punishment wasn't that bad.
If we'd said "these rules are dumb, we're ignoring them and just taking the punishment" then we'd have had the book thrown at us. Which is why we didn't, and no other club is.
Thats why you have good lawyers 👍
I expect that Nas and Wes do have good lawyers. Or at the very least, expensive lawyers.
Up to now, the expert legal advice that they have given the club doesn't seem to have included your suggestion of "just fuck the rules and see what happens".
Post by: Tuscans on January 07, 2025, 07:35:53 PM
I caught the end of something on Talksport where they said Chelsea had sold their womens team to themselves, ehh ? how does that work ?Sold it to their parent company. As long as they haven't inflated the price, which we're all waiting to see in the account when they're published, they can do that.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 07:37:47 PM
We should do what Forest did. Bought a load of players. Broke the rules. Got fined and docked points. Stayed up. Kept the players and are now benefitting from breaking the rules.
Said this as well got laughed at by a few posters. The whole FFP is a mockery
It’s still a laughable suggestion (I’m not convinced Toronto is 100% serious), they don’t just give points based on how much you’ve gone over. We’d have been punished for just ignoring the rules, Forest argued they just got the timing slightly wrong.
Edit - I see Dave has made the point better than I have
Nah we just need to be clever about it and high priced lawyers to find loopholes and drag it out. Making a mockery out of what is already a mockery. I’m not being serious, but the rules are flawed. The fact that Man City and Chelsea have done what they have and yes, Forest to a degree means that for minor penalties they get to keep their better or best players. We end up having to sell Doug and bring in players, most who are on loan or below the needed standard to keep us moving forward.
I dont think its a laughable suggestion as other teams are doing dodgy things with minimal to no punishments. If that wasnt the case fair dos.
But as we have both said get good lawyers and you could probably get away with it
Post by: Olneythelonely on January 07, 2025, 08:01:37 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 08:19:47 PM
Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Post by: Beard82 on January 07, 2025, 08:26:08 PM
I've heard that Dave @ claims direct is very goodDo you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Post by: lovejoy on January 07, 2025, 08:29:48 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on January 07, 2025, 09:12:33 PM
Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Erm, huh?
Post by: Demitri_C on January 07, 2025, 09:22:37 PM
Better call Dave.
Better call olneytheloney
Heard he works alone
Post by: jon collett on January 07, 2025, 09:23:25 PM
Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
City’s top inhouse lawyer is a Villa supporter!
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 07, 2025, 09:51:18 PM
Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Well, that’s irrelevant. Thanks.
Post by: Olneythelonely on January 07, 2025, 09:55:04 PM
Better call Dave.
Better call olneytheloney
Heard he works alone
Your joke works better if you spell lonely correctly.
Post by: eamonn on January 08, 2025, 01:32:33 AM
I miss Jimmy.
Post by: eamonn on January 08, 2025, 01:34:06 AM
I caught the end of something on Talksport where they said Chelsea had sold their womens team to themselves, ehh ? how does that work ?Sold it to their parent company. As long as they haven't inflated the price, which we're all waiting to see in the account when they're published, they can do that.
There'll have to be a PUP adjustment in there from memory of Group/Intercompanies accounting.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on January 08, 2025, 02:13:20 AM
Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Well, that’s irrelevant. Thanks.
Something tells me this won't make him think twice. 🤔
Can you buy lawyers from the middle isle of Lidl? That's where Nas is mooching.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 08, 2025, 08:35:37 AM
Better call Dave.
Better call olneytheloney
Heard he works alone
Your joke works better if you spell lonely correctly.
You sound like a right cheerful chap 😂
Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Well, that’s irrelevant. Thanks.
As was yours thanks
Post by: Tuscans on January 08, 2025, 04:25:16 PM
Well whatever happens they won't be able to do anything such from next season onwards with PSR being scrapped and the squad cost ratio rules come into effect. UEFA don't allow it.I caught the end of something on Talksport where they said Chelsea had sold their womens team to themselves, ehh ? how does that work ?Sold it to their parent company. As long as they haven't inflated the price, which we're all waiting to see in the account when they're published, they can do that.
There'll have to be a PUP adjustment in there from memory of Group/Intercompanies accounting.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 09, 2025, 12:09:33 AM
Better call Dave.
Better call olneytheloney
Heard he works alone
Your joke works better if you spell lonely correctly.
You sound like a right cheerful chap 😂Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Well, that’s irrelevant. Thanks.
As was yours thanks
Cool. You keep posting really stupid and irrelevant nonsense, I’ll point it out. Sometimes. I don’t think I’ve got time to commit fully.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 09, 2025, 08:04:12 AM
Better call Dave.
Better call olneytheloney
Heard he works alone
Your joke works better if you spell lonely correctly.
You sound like a right cheerful chap 😂Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Well, that’s irrelevant. Thanks.
As was yours thanks
Cool. You keep posting really stupid and irrelevant nonsense, I’ll point it out. Sometimes. I don’t think I’ve got time to commit fully.
Just keep waffling crap percy no one cares
Because my opinion differs to you you throw the insults. Very childish i bet you are a barrel of fun outside this forum spitting your toys out someone dares disagree with you 🤣
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 09, 2025, 08:18:39 AM
Better call Dave.
Better call olneytheloney
Heard he works alone
Your joke works better if you spell lonely correctly.
You sound like a right cheerful chap 😂Do you think Wes and Nas having some local ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers?
You dont think city or chelsea dont have top lawyers?
Well, that’s irrelevant. Thanks.
As was yours thanks
Cool. You keep posting really stupid and irrelevant nonsense, I’ll point it out. Sometimes. I don’t think I’ve got time to commit fully.
Just keep waffling crap percy no one cares
Because my opinion differs to you you throw the insults. Very childish i bet you are a barrel of fun outside this forum spitting your toys out someone dares disagree with you 🤣
It’s not because your opinion differs to mine. It’s because your opinion is ridiculous nonsense that shows ypu have little understanding of what you’re talking about.
I’m positive that you’re a ‘barrel of fun’ because you’re so funny. The fact that you don’t mean to be is neither here nor there to the people laughing at you.
Post by: lovejoy on January 09, 2025, 08:24:56 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on January 09, 2025, 02:23:12 PM
Seen an estimate somewhere that the losses for that season will be around £82m, but the fact we extended the financial year by a further month and sold a number of players in that month, means the PSR figure will be around a £20m loss.
That would put us under the £105m limit, so looks like we should be OK. I haven't really been keeping up-to-date with when the new changes will be coming in, but this year looks extremely tight under the current regulations. An article I read said that we would only be able to post a loss of £17m for this year, but not sure if that figure includes deductions.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 10, 2025, 08:58:23 AM
Agree to disagree?
Yep im ok with this i dont think the other party is as he doesnt like to be challenged but hey ho 👍
Anyways back to FFP. I do wonder if we spend money in jan how it effects our summer budget. If we dont get chanpions league i do feel a player will have to be sold. Of its not duran (if there is a minimum release clause) tjw obvious candidate would ramsey
Post by: sid1964 on January 10, 2025, 11:07:59 AM
Leicester / Chelsea he reckoned were most at risk of breaching the FFP rules (although Chelsea will probably find their way around the rules).
So we will see if we are compliant very soon.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 10, 2025, 12:39:11 PM
Post by: eye digress on January 12, 2025, 12:17:57 PM
If that Chelsea story is true though, goodness me... I mean, without wishing to be hypocritical given our own PSR shenanigans, that would be outrageous.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 12, 2025, 01:28:56 PM
Seems the Graun doesn't feel we are in any immediate risk of a breach (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jan/12/premier-league-disciplinary-charges-make-clubs-rush-to-balance-the-books).How you get to a valuation of £140mil for the women’s team needs some imagination.
If that Chelsea story is true though, goodness me... I mean, without wishing to be hypocritical given our own PSR shenanigans, that would be outrageous.
Post by: Rigadon on January 12, 2025, 01:29:37 PM
Seems the Graun doesn't feel we are in any immediate risk of a breach (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jan/12/premier-league-disciplinary-charges-make-clubs-rush-to-balance-the-books).How you get to a valuation of £140mil for the women’s team needs some imagination.
If that Chelsea story is true though, goodness me... I mean, without wishing to be hypocritical given our own PSR shenanigans, that would be outrageous.
Or investigation!
Post by: jwarry on January 13, 2025, 07:45:24 PM
BREAKING: Premier League will issue disciplinary charges tomorrow against any clubs who have broken financial rules for the 2021-24 reporting period 🚨
Post by: ian c. on January 13, 2025, 08:05:17 PM
Post by: AV82EC on January 13, 2025, 08:44:14 PM
It seems strange that costs for women's teams can be excluded for PSR purposes, but the proceeds from selling them can be included.
I suppose one is an operational cost so P & L and the actual team/club itself is an asset so Balance sheet.
If they get away with it, everyone will do it including us Id assume.
Post by: ozzjim on January 13, 2025, 11:17:52 PM
Post by: AV82EC on January 13, 2025, 11:19:53 PM
Post by: ozzjim on January 13, 2025, 11:22:08 PM
Post by: jwarry on January 14, 2025, 07:37:23 AM
(https://i.ibb.co/5KDDz2D/IMG-9562.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5KDDz2D)
Post by: ozzjim on January 14, 2025, 07:47:12 AM
Post by: Villan82 on January 14, 2025, 08:17:34 AM
Post by: Dave on January 14, 2025, 08:25:10 AM
Hopefully Father Villadawg has left a Chelsea points deduction under the tree.
Post by: LeeB on January 14, 2025, 08:28:19 AM
Happy football accountancy nerd day! Feels like it comes earlier every year.
Hopefully Father Villadawg has left a Chelsea points deduction under the tree.
We should always remember Villadawg on this day, he made those spreadsheets so we didn't have to.
Post by: Rigadon on January 14, 2025, 08:42:42 AM
Happy football accountancy nerd day! Feels like it comes earlier every year.
Hopefully Father Villadawg has left a Chelsea points deduction under the tree.
We should always remember Villadawg on this day, he made those spreadsheets so we didn't have to.
Haha - both posts made me laugh ahead of a shite working day ahead. Bravo.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on January 14, 2025, 09:00:23 AM
Happy football accountancy nerd day! Feels like it comes earlier every year.
Hopefully Father Villadawg has left a Chelsea points deduction under the tree.
We should always remember Villadawg on this day, he made those spreadsheets so we didn't have to.
Forget Kieran Maguire, Villadawg did way more to further popular understanding of football finance.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 14, 2025, 09:30:59 AM
Post by: lovejoy on January 14, 2025, 09:47:32 AM
Post by: Dave on January 14, 2025, 10:06:14 AM
Post by: Dave on January 14, 2025, 10:16:40 AM
According to The Times.
Post by: Drummond on January 14, 2025, 10:23:03 AM
Post by: Olneythelonely on January 14, 2025, 10:24:29 AM
Post by: AV82EC on January 14, 2025, 10:27:25 AM
Oh well for those interested in Football finances the next big day is the Deloitte Annual Football report which must be due soon, followed by Villa’s Annual accounts for 2023/24. Phwoooar it’s going to be a scorcher.
Post by: lovejoy on January 14, 2025, 10:34:21 AM
Post by: Demitri_C on January 14, 2025, 10:43:11 AM
Post by: PaulTheVillan on January 14, 2025, 11:05:12 AM
Which means they'll likely change the rules now.
Post by: Jon Crofts on January 14, 2025, 11:37:16 AM
Post by: Dave on January 14, 2025, 11:38:58 AM
Post by: Gareth on January 14, 2025, 11:47:00 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on January 14, 2025, 11:52:21 AM
Post by: OCD on January 14, 2025, 11:57:45 AM
Still just the usual, selling £100-150m of academy players every summer.
Didn't they also sell their hotel and it's been allowed into the PSR calculation?
Post by: Dave on January 14, 2025, 12:02:33 PM
Post by: ozzjim on January 14, 2025, 12:24:36 PM
How in the actual fuck have Chelsea got away with it?Sold their women's team to themselves for £100 plus million helped 😂
Post by: Tuscans on January 14, 2025, 12:48:51 PM
That and they did sell a lot of players last summer a few that were home grown. Add the fact they spread the cost over very long contracts. It's the next season or two that they might find more difficult because of UEFAs squad cost ratio ruling and the lack of Mounts and Gallaghers coming through to help the books.How in the actual fuck have Chelsea got away with it?Sold their women's team to themselves for £100 plus million helped 😂
Post by: ozzjim on January 14, 2025, 01:02:35 PM
Post by: Dave P on January 14, 2025, 02:20:37 PM
"No complaint has been brought against Leicester by the Premier League for any breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 23/24."
Thoughts and prayers with Mr Poppadopolus, the Bristol City fan.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on January 14, 2025, 02:28:18 PM
"No complaint has been brought against Leicester by the Premier League for any breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 23/24."
Thoughts and prayers with Mr Poppadopolus, the Bristol City fan.
Now, now, he's hasn't mentioned our finances on OTIB in over 16 hours.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 14, 2025, 08:46:15 PM
Post by: LukeJames on January 14, 2025, 08:52:38 PM
Completely forgot about this. What a time to be alive that was."No complaint has been brought against Leicester by the Premier League for any breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 23/24."
Thoughts and prayers with Mr Poppadopolus, the Bristol City fan.
Now, now, he's hasn't mentioned our finances on OTIB in over 16 hours.
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 14, 2025, 09:00:03 PM
Can anyone tell me how Forest complied? There’s something very wrong if we had to sell players on twice as much revenue.They didn’t , they got a points deduction which didn’t matter.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 14, 2025, 09:01:03 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on January 14, 2025, 09:02:05 PM
I was on about this financial year but I assume the Johnson money was booked.Ok.
Post by: Dave on January 14, 2025, 09:03:21 PM
I was on about this financial year but I assume the Johnson money was booked.
I'm guessing that the £12m they got from Newcastle for their third choice goalkeeper was a bit of Iroegbunam / Dobbin style jiggery-pokery.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on January 14, 2025, 09:05:15 PM
Unless we do it.
Post by: lovejoy on January 15, 2025, 12:00:21 AM
Post by: OCD on January 15, 2025, 11:07:45 AM
Post by: Tuscans on January 15, 2025, 11:18:15 AM
The rules are daft though and Premier League clubs won't vote changes through because of a perceived competitive advantage.They all change next season.
Post by: paul_e on January 15, 2025, 11:29:27 AM
Post by: Hookeysmith on January 15, 2025, 01:19:43 PM
Any system that makes selling your academy products the right thing to do in almost any circumstance is crap and completely at odds with other rules that were put in place to try to encourage teams to develop their own talent.
Again it is evidence that it props up the "big" teams like Chelsea and Cite£ as they have huge academys where they just sell off players every year.
For every cock up (Like Cole Palmer) there are lots of kids that are just bargaining chips that never get heard of again
Post by: Villatillidie25 on January 15, 2025, 01:27:11 PM
Any system that makes selling your academy products the right thing to do in almost any circumstance is crap and completely at odds with other rules that were put in place to try to encourage teams to develop their own talent.
Again it is evidence that it props up the "big" teams like Chelsea and Cite£ as they have huge academys where they just sell off players every year.
For every cock up (Like Cole Palmer) there are lots of kids that are just bargaining chips that never get heard of again
It is but how do you create a set of rules that is equitable, encourages "right" behaviours when the starting playing field is soooo skewed. it's nigh on impossible. add to that the political / out for themselves mentality of every PL club (incl. us) and you'll never get a set of rules that gets passed by the majority.
The only option way I can see that can happen is for it to be dictated to clubs (via a regulator or UEFA/FIFA) but I assume that would just end in legal quagmire and/or be the beginning of clubs breaking away to form a Super League.
Post by: Demitri_C on January 29, 2025, 10:41:59 PM
Post by: Tuscans on January 29, 2025, 10:47:35 PM
So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
Post by: paul_e on January 29, 2025, 10:56:52 PM
So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We already have. That was based on turnover of £204m. we're going to come close to doubling that this season without having increased our wage bill all that much.
Post by: caster troy on January 29, 2025, 11:01:25 PM
Post by: Tuscans on January 29, 2025, 11:03:51 PM
2024 accounts show revenues of 310 million euros ( £260 million ) of which 96% of that is spent on wages. We don't yet know what 2025 accounts will show, probably an increase in revenue yes but who knows what our outgoings will be on who we bring in, salaries and other expenses etc when it comes to the next accounting period.So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We already have. That was based on turnover of £204m. we're going to come close to doubling that this season without having increased our wage bill all that much.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 29, 2025, 11:38:00 PM
So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We were ok for last season, ie accounts upto June 2024. They won't know about this season until June 2025. However Duran will definitely do a lot towards it, depending on how much we spend getting someone in.
Post by: Clive W on January 29, 2025, 11:54:46 PM
Post by: London Villan on January 29, 2025, 11:56:18 PM
Post by: DB on January 30, 2025, 12:00:29 AM
Post by: paul_e on January 30, 2025, 12:02:04 AM
Sorry if already covered, but how much do we get for progressing into the top 8 of the CL...?
Including cash for winning the game tonight has earned us another €13m
Post by: PeterWithesShin on January 30, 2025, 12:02:25 AM
Sorry if already covered, but how much do we get for progressing into the top 8 of the CL...?
2.7m Euros for the win and 11m for 8th. I think it is.
Post by: DB on January 30, 2025, 12:02:38 AM
Sorry if already covered, but how much do we get for progressing into the top 8 of the CL...?
Including cash for winning the game tonight has earned us another €13m
Cheers.
Post by: Somniloquism on January 30, 2025, 12:18:27 AM
Sorry if already covered, but how much do we get for progressing into the top 8 of the CL...?
2.7m Euros for the win and 11m for 8th. I think it is.
€2.1m for the win. About 8mil* for finishing 8th. Then 11m is for qualifying to the the next round direct.
*Draws only get 0.7m for each team and a further 0.7mil goes into a pot to also be shared out across the league so maybe closer to 9mill
Post by: tomd2103 on January 30, 2025, 02:08:01 AM
2024 accounts show revenues of 310 million euros ( £260 million ) of which 96% of that is spent on wages. We don't yet know what 2025 accounts will show, probably an increase in revenue yes but who knows what our outgoings will be on who we bring in, salaries and other expenses etc when it comes to the next accounting period.So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We already have. That was based on turnover of £204m. we're going to come close to doubling that this season without having increased our wage bill all that much.
When does it change from the rolling 3 year period to percentage of revenue?
Post by: Tuscans on January 30, 2025, 02:15:21 AM
I think because we're in a UEFA competition it's in effect this season and spending must not exceed 90 per cent of turnover, dropping to a 70 per cent limit by 2025-26 and thereafter. From what I read.2024 accounts show revenues of 310 million euros ( £260 million ) of which 96% of that is spent on wages. We don't yet know what 2025 accounts will show, probably an increase in revenue yes but who knows what our outgoings will be on who we bring in, salaries and other expenses etc when it comes to the next accounting period.So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We already have. That was based on turnover of £204m. we're going to come close to doubling that this season without having increased our wage bill all that much.
When does it change from the rolling 3 year period to percentage of revenue?
https://onefootball.com/en/news/premier-league-clubs-have-now-voted-to-move-from-psr-ffp-to-uefa-squad-cost-ration-alignment-39189520
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 30, 2025, 02:24:21 AM
So assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We already have. That was based on turnover of £204m. we're going to come close to doubling that this season without having increased our wage bill all that much.
Last season’s accounts actually. So €310m. But yes, it will be helped by this season’s increased turnover and, by the look of it, player trading.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on January 30, 2025, 02:25:29 AM
Sorry if already covered, but how much do we get for progressing into the top 8 of the CL...?
2.7m Euros for the win and 11m for 8th. I think it is.
€2.1m
Post by: Demitri_C on January 30, 2025, 07:22:59 AM
Post by: lovejoy on January 30, 2025, 07:29:36 AM
Overall it’s got to the point where we are better on focussing on qualifying next year than progressing (from a financial perspective).
Post by: DB on January 30, 2025, 10:52:25 PM
Post by: ozzjim on January 31, 2025, 08:20:16 PM
Post by: danno on January 31, 2025, 08:22:52 PM
Clearly we're still totally screwed by this bollocks as we're only looking at loans to plug the gaping holes in our squad. Fun times.
Probably, but at the same time, you aren’t going to tell all and sundry that you’ve got plenty to spend. It was only a week ago we were willing to buy Loic Bade.
Post by: Matt C on February 01, 2025, 02:43:57 AM
Post by: Rigadon on February 01, 2025, 07:25:05 AM
Post by: Dave P on February 01, 2025, 01:48:42 PM
Post by: Tuscans on February 01, 2025, 02:40:17 PM
There can be no way we are still struggling with this after the CL run and selling all of these players. I know it’s more complex than money in / out in one little time period, but still.A certain financial football expert has said we might still be close to the limit due to our revenue/wages ratio when including CL prize money etc. I did ask if the January sales of £95M approx are an inclusion....waiting for a response.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 02, 2025, 01:38:04 PM
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Post by: Olneythelonely on February 02, 2025, 01:39:51 PM
There can be no way we are still struggling with this after the CL run and selling all of these players. I know it’s more complex than money in / out in one little time period, but still.A certain financial football expert has said we might still be close to the limit due to our revenue/wages ratio when including CL prize money etc. I did ask if the January sales of £95M approx are an inclusion....waiting for a response.
If that’s the case, I don’t see how we are in an anything other than hopeless situation. We need to get consistent CL football without spending any money. Basically, Unai has to pull off miracle after miracle otherwise there’s no point.
Post by: cdbearsfan on February 02, 2025, 01:41:26 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
We need to buy more pies, and pay more for them.
Post by: itbrvilla on February 02, 2025, 01:43:04 PM
Good job we're apparently about to pay 70% of Rashfords.Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
We need to buy more pies, and pay more for them.
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 01:47:03 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 01:49:23 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
2024 accounts show revenues of 310 million euros ( £260 million ) of which 96% of that is spent on wages. We don't yet know what 2025 accounts will show, probably an increase in revenue yes but who knows what our outgoings will be on who we bring in, salaries andSo assuming we are going to be massively ok with duran sale?We know we're okay at present because the Premier League have said so. But we need to sort out this 96-98% of our revenue being spent on wages.
We already have. That was based on turnover of £204m. we're going to come close to doubling that this season without having increased our wage bill all that much.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 02, 2025, 02:35:34 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
Post by: jwarry on February 02, 2025, 02:39:52 PM
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 02:44:19 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
No they didn't and you're wrong about both clubs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiyVH3lXIAAuuED?format=jpg&name=large)
Post by: aj2k77 on February 02, 2025, 02:49:31 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 02, 2025, 02:54:57 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
96%.
Post by: saunders_heroes on February 02, 2025, 03:00:40 PM
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 03:02:17 PM
Isn’t that last year’s numbers?They can't be this years yet.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 02, 2025, 03:08:58 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
No they didn't and you're wrong about both clubs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiyVH3lXIAAuuED?format=jpg&name=large)
My eye sites getting worse clearly 😂
But regardless 96% is still fucking high like my original point stated
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 02, 2025, 03:52:40 PM
Isn’t that last year’s numbers?
Yes.
Post by: eamonn on February 02, 2025, 03:57:14 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 02, 2025, 04:11:52 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
No they didn't and you're wrong about both clubs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiyVH3lXIAAuuED?format=jpg&name=large)
My eye sites getting worse clearly 😂
But regardless 96% is still fucking high like my original point stated
Player sales of £150m plus since July 1st, big increases in sponsorship and CL revenue of £75m and counting will lower that percentage somewhat.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 02, 2025, 04:13:24 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on February 02, 2025, 04:14:37 PM
Cheers pervy.
I didn't know it was that sort of forum.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 02, 2025, 04:16:08 PM
Cheers pervy.
I didn't know it was that sort of forum.
It very much is, seedybearsfan.
Post by: cdbearsfan on February 02, 2025, 04:16:59 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 02, 2025, 04:18:05 PM
Cheers pervy. Be good to see what it will be this year. You would assume selling some players would have helped with that
I didn’t know you knew me personally.
Post by: jon collett on February 02, 2025, 04:21:00 PM
https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html
Surely we are in a v different position revenue wise this year?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 02, 2025, 04:21:40 PM
All the figures are here:
https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html
Surely we are in a v different position revenue wise this year?
Miles better.
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 04:23:46 PM
The revenue figures published by Deloitte don't include transfer sales. It's a combination of matchday, commercial and broadcast revenue.Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
No they didn't and you're wrong about both clubs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiyVH3lXIAAuuED?format=jpg&name=large)
My eye sites getting worse clearly 😂
But regardless 96% is still fucking high like my original point stated
Player sales of £150m plus since July 1st, big increases in sponsorship and CL revenue of £75m and counting will lower that percentage somewhat.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 02, 2025, 04:40:13 PM
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 04:41:49 PM
Hahaha sorry typo percy not mean to call you thatGet lost, you probably want to 99 him.
Post by: Exeter 77 on February 02, 2025, 05:22:35 PM
I'm now wondering where the flake would go.Hahaha sorry typo percy not mean to call you thatGet lost, you probably want to 99 him.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 02, 2025, 06:39:59 PM
The revenue figures published by Deloitte don't include transfer sales. It's a combination of matchday, commercial and broadcast revenue.Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
No they didn't and you're wrong about both clubs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiyVH3lXIAAuuED?format=jpg&name=large)
My eye sites getting worse clearly 😂
But regardless 96% is still fucking high like my original point stated
Player sales of £150m plus since July 1st, big increases in sponsorship and CL revenue of £75m and counting will lower that percentage somewhat.
Yes, but it counts towards UEFA’s SCR rules.
Post by: Dave on February 02, 2025, 07:09:58 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Next time you go on a "why didn't we keep Luiz and Diaby / why haven't we bought two more defenders / why haven't we got a bigger squad" rant, do you reckon you can combine these two things that you're furious about, and find that you don't need to be furious about either of them?
Or at least pick one or the other.
Post by: Tuscans on February 02, 2025, 07:25:38 PM
Aye, limited even more.The revenue figures published by Deloitte don't include transfer sales. It's a combination of matchday, commercial and broadcast revenue.Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%96%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Sky had it 99%
No they didn't and you're wrong about both clubs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiyVH3lXIAAuuED?format=jpg&name=large)
My eye sites getting worse clearly 😂
But regardless 96% is still fucking high like my original point stated
Player sales of £150m plus since July 1st, big increases in sponsorship and CL revenue of £75m and counting will lower that percentage somewhat.
Yes, but it counts towards UEFA’s SCR rules.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 02, 2025, 07:30:07 PM
Did anyone see the wages ratio to Revenue on sky? We were bottom at 99% compared to spurs at 43%
Our wage bill looks out of control . Wtf is going on?
Next time you go on a "why didn't we keep Luiz and Diaby / why haven't we bought two more defenders / why haven't we got a bigger squad" rant, do you reckon you can combine these two things that you're furious about, and find that you don't need to be furious about either of them?
Or at least pick one or the other.
Sigh here we go again. Another needless and silly dig. You cant help yourself can you? Bringing up historic posts that have nothing to do with the recent discussion
Who offered the players these wages? Was it me or you? No it was the club so whose fault is it that our wages are that high? We shouldn't be signing players like diaby if its going to financially cripple our club and we have to sell
ill bring a page out of your book and bring up some history. I said countless times (and you know this so i find it bizarre that you are raising it now) is that i was deeply concerned about the lack of goals we would score by selling luiz and diaby. You said i was going to be wrong and look who is wrong now.
Finally how do you know luiz was one of our highest earners? We sold luiz and got two players who are not even with us. Then over spent on onana who is never fit. So yeah i stand by my comment then it was a bad deal.
Post by: Dave P on February 02, 2025, 08:36:04 PM
Surprised Noocassil's isn't higher.
Their figure will include CL money. Ours won’t yet.
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 07:54:26 PM
Post by: lovejoy on February 03, 2025, 08:44:39 PM
Post by: London Villan on February 03, 2025, 08:48:46 PM
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 08:54:50 PM
Isn’t that out accounting date already?That's the date you're allowed to extend it to if you feel you won't make it within PSR, allowing you to make a sale basically like we did. Most clubs accounts go in before then if your accounts are fine.
Post by: lovejoy on February 03, 2025, 09:30:00 PM
Last year we filed a notice to extend it to June. This makes sense as most player contracts are to June and it’s a natural break between one season and the next.
It means our 2024 year end will be filed end of March at the latest (not end of February like before). So any transfers in June 24 will be included.
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 09:37:15 PM
We have traditionally drawn our accounts up to May year end.
Last year we filed a notice to extend it to June. This makes sense as most player contracts are to June and it’s a natural break between one season and the next.
It means our 2024 year end will be filed end of March at the latest (not end of February like before). So any transfers in June 24 will be included.
What I'm saying is you know we extended our accounting period last season to June 30th because of PSR to include the Luiz sale. That's what some "Borson, Swiss Ramble" are saying we're likely to do again to make PSR by sales before that period.
Post by: Somniloquism on February 03, 2025, 09:43:29 PM
Seen one of two football finance experts speak about how they believe we could have to move the accounting date to 30th June again to meet PSR, factoring in CL revenue, player sales etc.Still? With the sales in the summer and Duran, I would have thought PSR was sorted for this year.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 03, 2025, 09:46:25 PM
Not correct, the Luiz sale had to be done by the PSR year end, we have changed our accounting period to coincide with that but we still had to comply by 30th of June regardless of our year end date.We have traditionally drawn our accounts up to May year end.
Last year we filed a notice to extend it to June. This makes sense as most player contracts are to June and it’s a natural break between one season and the next.
It means our 2024 year end will be filed end of March at the latest (not end of February like before). So any transfers in June 24 will be included.
What I'm saying is you know we extended our accounting period last season to June 30th because of PSR to include the Luiz sale. That's what some "Borson, Swiss Ramble" are saying we're likely to do again to make PSR by sales before that period.
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 09:47:20 PM
I know, I asked about that a few others did. Mentioned CL rev, increase in commercial/sponsorship. Sales of Philogene, Duran and Carlos with possibility of Buendia, Barry and other fringe players and they apparently have factored that in.Seen one of two football finance experts speak about how they believe we could have to move the accounting date to 30th June again to meet PSR, factoring in CL revenue, player sales etc.Still? With the sales in the summer and Duran, I would have thought PSR was sorted for this year.
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 09:50:35 PM
Yeah you're right. I sort of had that in my head but fucked it up as I spoke it out in my mind while typing it. Villa extended it by an extra month to see it end on June 30, to ensure that next year's PSR regs in December didn't throw up any issues.Not correct, the Luiz sale had to be done by the PSR year end, we have changed our accounting period to coincide with that but we still had to comply by 30th of June regardless of our year end date.We have traditionally drawn our accounts up to May year end.
Last year we filed a notice to extend it to June. This makes sense as most player contracts are to June and it’s a natural break between one season and the next.
It means our 2024 year end will be filed end of March at the latest (not end of February like before). So any transfers in June 24 will be included.
What I'm saying is you know we extended our accounting period last season to June 30th because of PSR to include the Luiz sale. That's what some "Borson, Swiss Ramble" are saying we're likely to do again to make PSR by sales before that period.
So bascially that's what I have heard will likely happen again.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 03, 2025, 09:50:39 PM
I would say we will be compliant with the dealing mentioned and specifically the Duran sale.I know, I asked about that a few others did. Mentioned CL rev, increase in commercial/sponsorship. Sales of Philogene, Duran and Carlos with possibility of Buendia, Barry and other fringe players and they apparently have factored that in.Seen one of two football finance experts speak about how they believe we could have to move the accounting date to 30th June again to meet PSR, factoring in CL revenue, player sales etc.Still? With the sales in the summer and Duran, I would have thought PSR was sorted for this year.
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 09:52:01 PM
I know that's what myself and others have said but the finance dudes predict a different scenario.I would say we will be compliant with the dealing mentioned and specifically the Duran sale.I know, I asked about that a few others did. Mentioned CL rev, increase in commercial/sponsorship. Sales of Philogene, Duran and Carlos with possibility of Buendia, Barry and other fringe players and they apparently have factored that in.Seen one of two football finance experts speak about how they believe we could have to move the accounting date to 30th June again to meet PSR, factoring in CL revenue, player sales etc.Still? With the sales in the summer and Duran, I would have thought PSR was sorted for this year.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 03, 2025, 09:53:38 PM
No idea where they are getting their numbers from then.I know that's what myself and others have said but the finance dudes predict a different scenario.I would say we will be compliant with the dealing mentioned and specifically the Duran sale.I know, I asked about that a few others did. Mentioned CL rev, increase in commercial/sponsorship. Sales of Philogene, Duran and Carlos with possibility of Buendia, Barry and other fringe players and they apparently have factored that in.Seen one of two football finance experts speak about how they believe we could have to move the accounting date to 30th June again to meet PSR, factoring in CL revenue, player sales etc.Still? With the sales in the summer and Duran, I would have thought PSR was sorted for this year.
The Duran sale us massive in PSR terms.
Post by: London Villan on February 03, 2025, 09:53:53 PM
Post by: paul_e on February 03, 2025, 09:53:57 PM
Not correct, the Luiz sale had to be done by the PSR year end, we have changed our accounting period to coincide with that but we still had to comply by 30th of June regardless of our year end date.We have traditionally drawn our accounts up to May year end.
Last year we filed a notice to extend it to June. This makes sense as most player contracts are to June and it’s a natural break between one season and the next.
It means our 2024 year end will be filed end of March at the latest (not end of February like before). So any transfers in June 24 will be included.
What I'm saying is you know we extended our accounting period last season to June 30th because of PSR to include the Luiz sale. That's what some "Borson, Swiss Ramble" are saying we're likely to do again to make PSR by sales before that period.
Seems like cheating to add 9 days to the year.
AWWW you fixed it.
Post by: lovejoy on February 03, 2025, 09:57:05 PM
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 09:57:41 PM
Well they believe the Deloitte figures were very conservative and generous to Villa, that's what he said.No idea where they are getting their numbers from then.I know that's what myself and others have said but the finance dudes predict a different scenario.I would say we will be compliant with the dealing mentioned and specifically the Duran sale.I know, I asked about that a few others did. Mentioned CL rev, increase in commercial/sponsorship. Sales of Philogene, Duran and Carlos with possibility of Buendia, Barry and other fringe players and they apparently have factored that in.Seen one of two football finance experts speak about how they believe we could have to move the accounting date to 30th June again to meet PSR, factoring in CL revenue, player sales etc.Still? With the sales in the summer and Duran, I would have thought PSR was sorted for this year.
The Duran sale us massive in PSR terms.
Post by: Tuscans on February 03, 2025, 10:01:24 PM
The year end will stay June now you can’t keep chopping and changing. This is old news. Not sure what your point is Tuscans.I'm not making a point. I was stating the people who work in football finance were saying we're sailing close to the wind even without sales and revenue increase. It's not my opinion, it's from others working in that field.
Post by: Footy-Vill on February 04, 2025, 01:53:26 PM
Specifics for this thread :
"Villa swivelled from one player to another, often shifting strategy on the future of their players and, throughout, being mindful of balancing the books. Overall, six players joined, with 11 leaving permanently or on loan.
Profit and sustainability rules (PSR) remain a thorny issue and will undoubtedly be revisited this summer. It is why Villa reluctantly sanctioned outgoings this winter as well as, privately, accepted the departures of others, such as Jhon Duran.
Talented but temperamental: Duran's Villa spell has been eventful - €77m was too good to refuse
Figures from the Deloitte Football Money League 2025 stated a remarkable 96 per cent of Villa’s wage-to-revenue ratio was spent on player salaries in the 2023-24 campaign. For comparison, the next highest of the clubs in the world’s top 20 for generating revenue was Chelsea, standing at 72 per cent.
This season, Villa have accrued £75m in Champions League prize money and exceeded £90m in sales during the window, discounting possible add-ons. Still, incoming funds did not soften PSR fears, even when it became evident the club were short of depth in certain positions and with little time remaining in the window. Senior figures insisted they would not rush into signings and/or take financial risks."
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 05, 2025, 02:59:57 PM
https://x.com/AVFCOfficial/status/1887139364352016879
Post by: LeeB on February 05, 2025, 03:03:27 PM
WE HAVE A NEW CYBERSECURITY PARTNER!!!
https://x.com/AVFCOfficial/status/1887139364352016879
Fucking yes man, everything is now in place.
Post by: Olneythelonely on February 05, 2025, 03:27:15 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 05, 2025, 03:30:29 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on February 05, 2025, 03:33:31 PM
I genuinely thought getting back into the Deloitte top 20 was going to be the biggest buzz of the season but this is off the scale. Us, with a cybersecurity partner. Pinching myself here.
We’ve always had one, it’s a shame you’d been living your life as normal not knowing about it. This is a NEW one.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on February 05, 2025, 03:34:55 PM
Post by: Beard82 on February 05, 2025, 03:40:23 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on February 05, 2025, 03:43:02 PM
Post by: Beard82 on February 05, 2025, 03:43:08 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on February 05, 2025, 03:59:13 PM
Post by: UK Redsox on February 05, 2025, 05:25:03 PM
This feels like an Arsenal type signing done way after window shuts. Feel a little spicy and dirty all at once that we got this one done. Can Sentire defend across the back four?
Can they protect the computers on a wet February night in Stoke ?
Post by: dcdavecollett on February 05, 2025, 07:34:31 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on February 07, 2025, 03:40:50 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjKtLg0XoAADgmB?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjJEpLmXIAAZz1E?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjMKxFTWgAAAfbH?format=jpg&name=large)
All courtesy of Kieran Maguire
https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1887763425725460495
Post by: paul_e on February 07, 2025, 03:56:56 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 08, 2025, 12:11:37 AM
CFO & Sports Business Advisor | Ex-Man City, City Football Group, Deloitte Sports Business Group | Football Finance | Strategy | Due Diligence | Football Regulatory FFP PSR FSR | Player Trading & Value Creation April 24, 2024
After 14 years of school, a 3 or 4 year degree, a 3 year training contract and 10 to 20 years of experience, you've realised your life-long dream and become a football club CFO.
All finance professionals face similar pressures and face tricky challenges. However, the football regulatory environment that has evolved over the last 15 years, and accelerated post-Covid, has created a complex web of regulations that, while well intentioned, create complications and confusion in Boardrooms around Europe.
Your budget process started three months ago. It’s a project that involves every business unit leader, and their teams, and covers the whole business including football, marketing, partnerships, operations, and corporate services.
You start with your key assumptions:
How successful will the team be on the pitch?
What are the inflationary cost pressures?
What renewals do the partnership team needs to achieve and what new sales are possible?
How much investment does the first team require and which players are likely to leave?
Are there any pricing adjustments for the football season?
How many non-football events are being held in the stadium?
What funds do you have for the capex programme and what work needs doing?
These questions are replicated if your organisation operates a women’s team, or a multi-club network.
At the same time you’re looking at where the current season will finish. You’re looking round corners at what risks might crystallise. Are there any opportunities? You know that each Premier League finishing position is worth £3m in broadcasting distributions and each round of the Champions League typically provides profits of around £12m. They’re the biggies.
You’re aware that you need to tell the Board where the financial results will land. Staff bonuses depend on them. You need to know whether you will comply with UEFA & the Premier League’s financial rules. Livelihoods depend on it.
The Board meeting is a couple of weeks away. It’s only three hours long and one of only four opportunities through the year for the Chief to update the Board. You know they want to talk about squad planning for next season. You do too.
New investment opportunities are proposed. Current business performance evaluated. Your section is critical but compared with which striker the team will buy for next season you're fighting an uphill battle for attention. You feel like the goalkeeper in the team. You’ve done your job well if no-one notices you’re there.
You walk into the room and you’re first to arrive. You normally are. The room is massive. Seats 20, but it’s only for the two of you. It’s currently chilly as the aircon has been running full blast. You turn it off and know it will be unbearably hot within 25 minutes. It’s a trick you use to keep meetings from overrunning.
The Chief comes in. An intimidating aura surrounds them. They're very bright and need to be. You know the topic is going to be confusing.
“Headlines?” they start while focusing on plugging their phone in. It’s only midday but you know that they've already done five hours of calls on it.
“In good shape” you reply. “Trend is positive year on year and cash is strong”.
“Excellent. In the Board meeting I’d like you to cover the forecast for the year and next year’s budget.”
“No problem.”
“And do we need to give a detailed cash update?”
“We do but it can cover it very quickly verbally.” You’re relieved but you’ve done this many times so you know what the Board expect. “But I need to update everyone on the new rules that UEFA and the Premier League have developed.”
“FFP.” They nod. “Good idea, but keep it brief. I’ve got some time now. Update me.”
“Firstly, it’s no longer FFP. UEFA call their rules ‘Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations’ or FSR and the Premier League ‘Profitability and Sustainability Regulations’ or PSR”.
You can tell you’re already losing your audience. Acronyms that wouldn’t sound out of place during the cold war will do that.
“Ah yes, the Premier League are aligning their rules with UEFA aren’t they?” It’s more of a statement than a question.
“Sort of” you reply. “We need to take a step back.”
“The pandemic caused UEFA to rethink their approach to what was then called FFP. They started a process of simplification. Their old break-even test that allowed clubs to lose €30m over three years – after allowances were made for ‘good spending’ on academies, facilities, and women’s football – have been renamed the Football Earnings Rule. And the allowance has been extended to €60m for all, and up to €90m if you meet other criteria.”
“Gotcha.” Happy they've understood it and can go back to fighting the building queue in their inbox.
“And they created another new test called the Squad Cost Rule.” You continue. “It limits clubs to spending 70% of...”
“Revenues on wages. I know. UEFA have been advocating the 70% test for years.” Interrupting your flow.
“Nope. It’s a very different calculation but confusingly the ratio is the same as the wages to revenue ratio they’ve previously talked about. This new Squad Cost Rule takes everything you spend on players – wages, agent fees, and amortisation – and divides it by your revenues and profit on player sales. This calculation must not be more than 70%.”
“Amortisation? Remind me…”
“Amortisation is the annual charge of signing a player. Say we bought a player for £70m on a 7 year contract, amortisation would be £10m per year. But…”
“Ah yes. I understand this well. What’s the but…?”
“But UEFA have decided that any player signed from 30 June 2022 must be amortised over a maximum of 5 years, so the same player would have an amortisation charge of £14m. This is problematic as accounting standards require us to charge £10m in our statutory accounts but adjust the reporting for UEFA”.
“So two different amortisations?” They're getting visibly irritated. Like you’re making it up. To be fair, it sounds like you are.
“No. Three amortisations.”
“What the fuck are you talking about?”
“The Premier League have copied UEFA’s cap at 5 years but are only applying it from 30 June 2023. Because we renew players’ contracts – the remaining cost is spread over the new contract life – we are going to end up with up to three different amortisation charges for each player.”
“Hmm. Okay, that’s the player cost part. What’s the bottom of the SRC?”
“SCR. It’s total revenues plus the profit on player sales.”
“Income from transfers?”
“No. It’s the profit generated which is sales price less the unamortised cost. So, if we sold a player for £70m, the profit would depend on how much amortisation has been charged. And remember that there are three different amortisations so there are three different profit on player sales.”
“I think I need something stronger than this coffee. Just give me a minute.” They leave to speak to their PA. We're going to need more than the 30 minutes we had allotted.
The break gives you time to reflect. You think you've covered it well so far. But you've only covered the easy bits. The challenging part is to come.
“Where are we up to?” Startles you as they burst back into the room.
“UEFA simplifying things by making one test into two.” You’re happy that someone else is now aware of the challenges you’ve had. It still feels like you’re living in the Truman Show mind.
“Ah, but the Premier League matching these rules is going to help. I’ve been told that they’re keeping the 70% rule for clubs playing in Europe but increasing it to 85% for other clubs.” They're much calmer now they think they understand.
“Yes but…”
“But. Another but?” Interrupting again.
“Yep. UEFA were mindful that if you assess the Squad Cost Rule over a season, they won’t receive those numbers until the October after the season finishes, i.e. in the middle of the Champions League group stage. A club could theoretically breach the rule to qualify for the competition and deprive someone else the spot and it would be too late to do anything. Therefore, UEFA are assessing the Squad Cost Rule over a calendar year so assessments can be made ahead of the season.”
“Do we monitor our calendar year results?” Having them engaged on the topic makes you feel more comfortable.
“No. But we’ll need to start.”
“At least the Premier League aligning will help. They’re using the calendar year too.” They look at you across the table and you lift your eyebrows.
“Nope. We need to assess that rule over a different period. Financial years.”
“So, let me check I’ve got this straight.” Standing up and taking a deep breath. “We used to have one rule that had slightly different thresholds depending on whether UEFA or the Premier League were applying it. We now have two different rules for UEFA, a rule for the Premier League which applies it over a different period, and three different amortisation number for each player?”
“Yep.” You respond. You’ve clearly explained it well.
“You’ll need to tell this to the Board. Can you do it simply?”
“Yes. But the appendices will be doing a lot of heavy lifting. The actual challenge will be trying to explain the headroom and model risks.”
“How so?”
“In the old days any additional revenue, cost saving, or profit on sale would go directly into the company’s profit and loss account which would drive our break-even assessment. Now for the Squad Cost Rule, only player costs, revenues and profit on sales are included which mean that we have to monitor that in addition to the company’s annual results.
“Every £1 of revenue allows us to spend up to 70p more on wages, agent fees, or amortisation. Wages and agent fees are simple as they’re annual costs. But as amortisation is spread over time – let’s say 5 years on average – the £1 allows us to spend up to £3.50 on transfer fees.
“When it comes to player sales, we need to be mindful of the unamortised cost of each player – as we did before – however we need to factor in the player’s wages while we’re assessing the impact of selling each player."
“What do you mean?” They ask.
“Our revenues plus profit on sales are about £500m and our player costs are £350m, so we’re bang on the 70% ratio.
“We are planning to sell the Dutch midfielder for £20m. He has an unamortised cost of £20m with 2 years left on £10m per year contract. If he is not sold we will increase our amortisation by £10m and our wages by £10m moving our ratio to 74%.
“To close that 4 percentage point gap we’d either need to cut player costs by £20m or increase revenues/profit by close to £29m.” You outline as simply as you can.
“Okay, I understand. I think we’ll need you in the room throughout the transfer window.”
“Good. That’s where I can be most helpful. We’re the lucky ones you know?”
“How is this lucky? Who could it possibly be more complicated for?”
“Imagine you’re a League 2 club about to be promoted. They have to comply with a quasi-wages to revenue limit. Next season they’ll be League 1 and have similar regulations but different limits. If they get promoted again, they need to apply the Championship’s regulations for the seasons they spent in League 2 and League 1 as if they had been in the Championship all along. So three sets of Football League regulations to be mindful of.
“They could have a Coventry City style cup run and with a bit more luck qualify for Europe. So, they’d need to be mindful of UEFA’s rules. Even better they could get promoted to the Premier League so they need to monitor those rules too.
“Plus the coming Independent Regulator. That’s six different tests and four regulators for a League 2 club to be mindful of. I’m lucky because I have 25 excellent people supporting me. They’ll have a team of between two and five.” I think I’ve finally lost them.
“Lucky indeed.” They nod. “It’s a good job you’re across this. I’m having lunch. Do you want to come? It’s too hot in here.”
Note that this is a fictional account based on the impact of the changing regulatory landscape for Premier League & Football League clubs. It draws attention to the complexity clubs are facing throughout the football pyramid. These aren't only concerns for clubs that regularly play in UEFA competitions.
About the author
Martyn is a uniquely experienced sports executive and CFO with over 20 years experience in a market leading consultancy and the leading multi-club football organisation.
He has extensive knowledge of & lived experience through:
Multi-club ownership
Football regulatory matters
Buy & sell side club acquisitions
Long range strategic planning, debt & capital raising
Stadia, training ground, and facility enhancements and business planning
Sports marketing & partnerships
Broadcast & media landscape
Player transactions & squad building
Tax planning, agent fees & image rights
Complex multi-company consolidation and financial reporting
Post by: dave.woodhall on February 08, 2025, 12:18:32 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on February 08, 2025, 01:21:41 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjKseJzWMAAIw_R?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjKtLg0XoAADgmB?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjJEpLmXIAAZz1E?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjMKxFTWgAAAfbH?format=jpg&name=large)
All courtesy of Kieran Maguire
https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1887763425725460495
That net spend since 1992 graphic says all you need to know about the achievements of Manchester City and Chelsea. What is the 'Facility Fee' in the bottom graphic? Guess it's linked to the number of games shown on TV in one of the columns before?
Post by: Dave on February 08, 2025, 08:27:36 AM
Post by: Proposition Joe on February 08, 2025, 09:11:15 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjKseJzWMAAIw_R?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjKtLg0XoAADgmB?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjJEpLmXIAAZz1E?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GjMKxFTWgAAAfbH?format=jpg&name=large)
All courtesy of Kieran Maguire
https://x.com/KieranMaguire/status/1887763425725460495
That net spend since 1992 graphic says all you need to know about the achievements of Manchester City and Chelsea. What is the 'Facility Fee' in the bottom graphic? Guess it's linked to the number of games shown on TV in one of the columns before?
Look at the teams on that graph that have spent less than 1bn since 1992, and look what they have to show for it. It's probably the worst place to be. If you're not on the chart, at least you haven't burned as much money, even if you've won sod all.
Post by: ChicagoLion on February 08, 2025, 09:26:46 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on February 08, 2025, 10:23:36 AM
That's exactly what it is. The overall broadcasting money is split, then there are extra payments per match that is televised.
Cheers Dave. Interesting how that could be open to be manipulated isn't it. I mean Spurs earnt £5m more than us simply because some people somewhere decided to put them on TV more than us.
Post by: garyellis on February 14, 2025, 06:44:38 PM
Last year, an independent arbitration panel found against aspects of the league's Associated Party Transaction regulations (APTs) after a lawsuit instigated by Manchester City.
The rules were formed by the Premier League to prevent clubs from profiting from commercial deals with companies linked to their owners that are deemed above "fair market value".
In November, the Premier League voted through amendments to the rules despite opposition from Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa, as well as City.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 14, 2025, 06:56:22 PM
Post by: garyellis on February 14, 2025, 06:59:23 PM
So what does that all mean?Would appear to suit our approach.
This will also put a focus on chief executive Richard Masters, who confirmed the changes in November despite being cautioned against implementing them by City and Aston Villa amongst others.
Post by: Demitri_C on February 14, 2025, 08:28:42 PM
Post by: VillaTim on February 14, 2025, 08:33:49 PM
So what does that all mean?It means Newcastle Arabia will ultimately takeover and dominate (assuming the KSA / PIF continue to own them)
Post by: steamer on February 15, 2025, 05:36:07 AM
They show tables relating various ratios, it shows that 96% of our revenue goes on wages .
Out of the top 30 revenue generating clubs, PSG is next at 83%
It does not show the nett value of the spend, but it is a sobering thought and highlights why the need to be in the champions league and generate more money to bring down the %
Post by: Percy McCarthy on February 15, 2025, 07:28:07 AM
Just read an article on the BBC about Levy.
They show tables relating various ratios, it shows that 96% of our revenue goes on wages .
Out of the top 30 revenue generating clubs, PSG is next at 83%
It does not show the nett value of the spend, but it is a sobering thought and highlights why the need to be in the champions league and generate more money to bring down the %
Not as bad as it seems when player trading is included, plus those are the figures for last year, since when revenue will have increased by a large amount.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on February 15, 2025, 08:57:19 AM
Post by: Tuscans on February 21, 2025, 07:09:50 PM
@martynziegler
Post by: Tuscans on February 21, 2025, 07:21:26 PM
Aston Villa’s challenges in complying with Uefa and the Premier League’s financial regulations were exposed last week when they asked fellow top-flight clubs to increase increase the limit on spending on player wages and transfers.
Villa are expected to be in breach of Uefa’s squad cost ratio (SCR) rules for 2024, which limited clubs in European competition to spending 80 per cent of their revenue on player costs and will drop to 70 per cent for 2025. A financial penalty of several million pounds is likely to be the outcome of such a breach.
The Premier League had planned to adopt SCR for next season but with an 85 per cent limit. That was still not high enough for Villa, who wrote to fellow clubs asking for it to be raised to 90 per cent — a move that failed to attract much support.
Post by: SaddVillan on February 21, 2025, 07:29:52 PM
Cost control and the squad cost rule
The new regulations will see clubs subject to squad cost controls for the first time. The cost control rule restricts spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenues. (The gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% in 2025/2026)
Surely, The Times is ambiguous when it says 2024 and 80%
It's 90% for 2023-2024 and 80% for 2024-25.
Post by: Drummond on February 21, 2025, 07:37:33 PM
Post by: VillaTim on February 21, 2025, 08:16:34 PM
Post by: Mister E on February 21, 2025, 08:39:16 PM
Post by: Gareth on February 21, 2025, 10:32:28 PM
I'd be surprised if our owners have miscalculated the various thresholds ,... Unless the UEFA thresholds have shifted.
Think the key is it’s a fine….if making the limit would have meant not qualifying for Europe then the fine is preferable particularly if you look at how much CL has generated in revenues
Post by: eamonn on February 22, 2025, 11:08:54 AM
Regardless of how they do with us, both may have to leave in the summer anyway as the rules make it difficult for us to sign high-earners.
The revenue generation needs to spin a lot faster than the wage bill now and forever more.
Post by: AV84 on February 22, 2025, 11:59:38 AM
I'd be surprised if our owners have miscalculated the various thresholds ,... Unless the UEFA thresholds have shifted.
Think the key is it’s a fine….if making the limit would have meant not qualifying for Europe then the fine is preferable particularly if you look at how much CL has generated in revenues
Yes, seems like a calculated risk. Look at Forest taking a points deduction last season, and most likely qualifying for some European competition next season.
Post by: SaddVillan on February 27, 2025, 07:58:31 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-la-liga-javier-tebas-b2706153.html
It gets better.
Price of Football financial expert Kieran Maguire has often mpoted that City "offshore" some of their running costs to group companies, and that has helped them with PSR issues.
This development doesn't surprise me.
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2025, 09:19:25 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on March 04, 2025, 09:22:12 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 04, 2025, 09:22:50 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
£400m is his target isn't it?
Post by: London Villan on March 04, 2025, 09:36:31 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 04, 2025, 09:55:20 PM
By 2027 he was looking to reach that figure yeah.Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
£400m is his target isn't it?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2025, 12:04:35 AM
By 2027 he was looking to reach that figure yeah.Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
£400m is his target isn't it?
Let’s not forget who is chiefly responsible though. Unai Emery.
Post by: Garyth on March 05, 2025, 03:34:30 AM
I wonder if we get reach that target, if he eases off on the price gouging somewhat - or uses it as a rationale [ie. 'it worked, lets do it more'] to push even harder.By 2027 he was looking to reach that figure yeah.Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
£400m is his target isn't it?
I bet it only goes one way.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on March 05, 2025, 04:15:48 AM
I wonder if we get reach that target, if he eases off on the price gouging somewhat - or uses it as a rationale [ie. 'it worked, lets do it more'] to push even harder.By 2027 he was looking to reach that figure yeah.Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
£400m is his target isn't it?
I bet it only goes one way.
Good luck to him if we don't have European football next season.
Post by: rob_bridge on March 05, 2025, 09:26:07 AM
By 2027 he was looking to reach that figure yeah.Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
£400m is his target isn't it?
Let’s not forget who is chiefly responsible though. Unai Emery.
Heck's predecessor hired him. So maybe Purslow deserves some credit.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 05, 2025, 09:30:37 AM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 05, 2025, 09:44:49 AM
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2025, 09:51:11 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on March 05, 2025, 10:46:43 AM
It will be a big ask to hit that figure if we aren't back in the CL next season.
Yep, was thinking the same. Given some of the figures I've seen being mentioned for our Champions League involvement, there will be a sizeable hole in the income if we don't make it into the competition again won't there?
Post by: DB on March 05, 2025, 11:15:45 AM
Post by: London Villan on March 05, 2025, 12:38:33 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 05, 2025, 01:58:47 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
Post by: PeterWithe on March 05, 2025, 02:13:21 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
Post by: Drummond on March 05, 2025, 02:16:46 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
They must have, there's no such thing as a waiting list is there?
Post by: Villatillidie25 on March 05, 2025, 02:19:05 PM
the stat that surprised me most was the increase in matchday revenue - it's nearly doubled while the capacity has actually shrunk slightly.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2025, 02:42:06 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
I moved to the bottom of the waiting list a couple of years ago, when my daughter decided she wanted to be on it and me and my son had to lose our place at 29,000th to be with her on the list. We dropped to 37,000th and as I say, that was a couple of years ago so it sounds realistic to me.
I’m surprised at 42k though, as a bloke and his son at work told me they are numbered at 45,000th.
Post by: jon collett on March 05, 2025, 02:44:02 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
No that sounds about right to me. I asked in the summer and it was about 40k then.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 05, 2025, 07:07:51 PM
Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.
No.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2025, 07:21:02 PM
Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.
No.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
Post by: olaftab on March 05, 2025, 07:40:56 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgl0zrxl8z9o
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 05, 2025, 07:41:59 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on March 05, 2025, 07:48:40 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
No that sounds about right to me. I asked in the summer and it was about 40k then.
I would be suprised if the waiting list was that high tbh. I think if it was we would have started the 50k expansion not cancelled it
Post by: Villan82 on March 05, 2025, 08:02:13 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
No that sounds about right to me. I asked in the summer and it was about 40k then.
I would be suprised if the waiting list was that high tbh. I think if it was we would have started the 50k expansion not cancelled it
None of it adds up. The demand is there, no question. It's there as it has never been there before but we are faffing around, pushing in a few extra seats here and there. The mind boggles
Post by: Demitri_C on March 05, 2025, 08:03:42 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 05, 2025, 08:16:20 PM
Post by: jon collett on March 05, 2025, 08:18:25 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
No that sounds about right to me. I asked in the summer and it was about 40k then.
I would be suprised if the waiting list was that high tbh. I think if it was we would have started the 50k expansion not cancelled it
Well as I’ve just told you that’s what they said the figure was in the summer. So it makes sense. I think a lot of people like the thought of a season ticket. Loads seem to attend and then leave ten minutes early in the Witton Lane. Also people see a queue so join it.
And yet it’s always easy to buy tickets for home matches.
Either way Villa’s database should be pretty high in terms of marketing tickets.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 05, 2025, 08:28:27 PM
Chris Heck, Aston Villa president of business operations, said in a video interview, expects revenue for the 2024-25 season to fall between £360 million and £370 million.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/soccer/2025/aston-villa-champions-league-revenue-1234841606/
That states the ST waiting list is at 42k, they've got that mixed up with capacity haven't they?
Wonder if the financial results will be the catalyst for any VP news?
No that sounds about right to me. I asked in the summer and it was about 40k then.
I would be suprised if the waiting list was that high tbh. I think if it was we would have started the 50k expansion not cancelled it
Well as I’ve just told you that’s what they said the figure was in the summer. So it makes sense. I think a lot of people like the thought of a season ticket. Loads seem to attend and then leave ten minutes early in the Witton Lane. Also people see a queue so join it.
And yet it’s always easy to buy tickets for home matches.
Either way Villa’s database should be pretty high in terms of marketing tickets.
You may told me what they have said but im allowed to be sceptical am i not? I personally do not believe it whether they told you or not.its a clever supply and demand tactic commonly used jon.
Im sure every villa fan would want a season ticket but alot of people wont be able to afford it just the way it is with the cost of the world at the moment.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 05, 2025, 08:46:53 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 05, 2025, 08:50:06 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 05, 2025, 09:05:30 PM
Yeah I've always been sceptical about the waiting list, I know loads who don't have ST's who never seem to have trouble getting to see a game
those things aren't the same though. Plenty of people will be on the waiting list who won't pay for individual tickets. Plenty more will be on there knowing it's going to take a while before it gets to them and they are speculating. Plenty more still will have plans for weekends based on not having a season ticket that would change if they got one.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 05, 2025, 09:32:00 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 05, 2025, 10:41:08 PM
Yeah I've always been sceptical about the waiting list, I know loads who don't have ST's who never seem to have trouble getting to see a game
those things aren't the same though. Plenty of people will be on the waiting list who won't pay for individual tickets. Plenty more will be on there knowing it's going to take a while before it gets to them and they are speculating. Plenty more still will have plans for weekends based on not having a season ticket that would change if they got one.
I would be more likely to buy a season ticket and then reorganise my life around regular games than I am to buy one or two matchday tickets.
Post by: paul_e on March 05, 2025, 10:57:30 PM
Yeah I've always been sceptical about the waiting list, I know loads who don't have ST's who never seem to have trouble getting to see a game
those things aren't the same though. Plenty of people will be on the waiting list who won't pay for individual tickets. Plenty more will be on there knowing it's going to take a while before it gets to them and they are speculating. Plenty more still will have plans for weekends based on not having a season ticket that would change if they got one.
I would be more likely to buy a season ticket and then reorganise my life around regular games than I am to buy one or two matchday tickets.
Exactly, and I suspect that's true for a huge portion of that list.
Post by: DB on March 05, 2025, 11:22:39 PM
Yeah I've always been sceptical about the waiting list, I know loads who don't have ST's who never seem to have trouble getting to see a game
those things aren't the same though. Plenty of people will be on the waiting list who won't pay for individual tickets. Plenty more will be on there knowing it's going to take a while before it gets to them and they are speculating. Plenty more still will have plans for weekends based on not having a season ticket that would change if they got one.
I would be more likely to buy a season ticket and then reorganise my life around regular games than I am to buy one or two matchday tickets.
Exactly, and I suspect that's true for a huge portion of that list.
I am one of those. Go to a lot of matches as a member, but having a ST would be so much better. I am around 8K on the waiting list.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 05, 2025, 11:25:29 PM
Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.No.Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.
No.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
The £400m targeted revenue stream does not include player sales. Grealish is nothing to do with it.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2025, 11:46:41 PM
Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.No.Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.
No.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
The £400m targeted revenue stream does not include player sales. Grealish is nothing to do with it.
How strange then that Monchi specifically said a couple of months ago that player trading was an important part of raising revenue.
And in his question, London Villan specifically referenced the FFP £400m.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 06, 2025, 09:51:07 AM
Post by: Concrete Tom on March 06, 2025, 12:12:12 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 06, 2025, 01:03:31 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 06, 2025, 02:12:31 PM
I think we've changed our year end to match the PSR, official season, and usual contract end date of 30th June.
This is true Drummond, but the accounts that will be released will be those up to June 30th last year,, so CT could be right. They have been compiled and audited, which is why the headline figures have been given to Deloitte for their Money League survey that is released every January.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 06, 2025, 02:18:20 PM
The £400m revenue Heck is referring to will not include player trading. Player trading/salaries etc is reflected in the profit and loss.
And FFP is based on profit and loss. If and when our accounts show turnover of £400m, I think that will be Heck’s target achieved. I’ve never heard anyone specify ‘turnover excluding player trading’ rather than just turnover. I could have course be wrong and would be grateful if you point could point out where that has been specified.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 06, 2025, 03:46:44 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 06, 2025, 03:53:51 PM
PSG and Roma in settlement regimes so not sure how those are impacted/dealt with.
NB: this is the raw Wage:Turnover ratio but directionally indicative of SCR. No major shocks but also shows UEFA's appraisal of revenue - meaningful differences with Chelsea (€25m lower vs Deloitte (€545m)).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXgpdpXgAAI0Q1?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXh12sWgAARlR7?format=jpg&name=large)
Post by: AV82EC on March 06, 2025, 04:02:06 PM
If it’s excluded because people are now talking SCR then there’ll be loads of other stuff excluded as well so I’m struggling to understand why Player Trading (profit or loss) is even mentioned.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 06, 2025, 04:15:54 PM
I can see why for targeting purposes you would focus on revenue stream not asset realisation profits.Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.No.Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.
No.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
The £400m targeted revenue stream does not include player sales. Grealish is nothing to do with it.
How strange then that Monchi specifically said a couple of months ago that player trading was an important part of raising revenue.
And in his question, London Villan specifically referenced the FFP £400m.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 06, 2025, 04:57:03 PM
🚨UEFA's 2024 Financial Landscape report is out and more or less confirms that Villa will fail UEFA Squad Cost test (possibly sustainability too). Chelsea also appear to fail. Newcastle very close but not in Europe this season..this whole thing is stupid. We have been in CL one season, we dont have the advantage as other sides who have had Cl money season in and season out. How do they expect teams like villa to compete if you are a newbie in CL?
PSG and Roma in settlement regimes so not sure how those are impacted/dealt with.
NB: this is the raw Wage:Turnover ratio but directionally indicative of SCR. No major shocks but also shows UEFA's appraisal of revenue - meaningful differences with Chelsea (€25m lower vs Deloitte (€545m)).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXgpdpXgAAI0Q1?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXh12sWgAARlR7?format=jpg&name=large)
Its ridiculous.
Good luck to forest if they qualify as im sure they will be worse than us
Post by: Tuscans on March 06, 2025, 05:05:15 PM
Sponsors don't want/care about new clubs like Villa competing. Bigger, established clubs like Real, Barcelona, Liverpool, City etc bring more eyes to the prize, generating bigger profits for UEFA. That's basically what it boils down to.🚨UEFA's 2024 Financial Landscape report is out and more or less confirms that Villa will fail UEFA Squad Cost test (possibly sustainability too). Chelsea also appear to fail. Newcastle very close but not in Europe this season..this whole thing is stupid. We have been in CL one season, we dont have the advantage as other sides who have had Cl money season in and season out. How do they expect teams like villa to compete if you are a newbie in CL?
PSG and Roma in settlement regimes so not sure how those are impacted/dealt with.
NB: this is the raw Wage:Turnover ratio but directionally indicative of SCR. No major shocks but also shows UEFA's appraisal of revenue - meaningful differences with Chelsea (€25m lower vs Deloitte (€545m)).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXgpdpXgAAI0Q1?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXh12sWgAARlR7?format=jpg&name=large)
Its ridiculous.
Good luck to forest if they qualify as im sure they will be worse than us
Post by: Dave on March 06, 2025, 05:10:24 PM
Good luck to forest if they qualify as im sure they will be worse than us
Very much so.
Guess they'll be waving goodbye to either Gibbs-White or Murillo to make things work. As presumably they still need to meet the wages rules to play in the Europa League as well.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 06, 2025, 06:39:41 PM
Sponsors don't want/care about new clubs like Villa competing. Bigger, established clubs like Real, Barcelona, Liverpool, City etc bring more eyes to the prize, generating bigger profits for UEFA. That's basically what it boils down to.🚨UEFA's 2024 Financial Landscape report is out and more or less confirms that Villa will fail UEFA Squad Cost test (possibly sustainability too). Chelsea also appear to fail. Newcastle very close but not in Europe this season..this whole thing is stupid. We have been in CL one season, we dont have the advantage as other sides who have had Cl money season in and season out. How do they expect teams like villa to compete if you are a newbie in CL?
PSG and Roma in settlement regimes so not sure how those are impacted/dealt with.
NB: this is the raw Wage:Turnover ratio but directionally indicative of SCR. No major shocks but also shows UEFA's appraisal of revenue - meaningful differences with Chelsea (€25m lower vs Deloitte (€545m)).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXgpdpXgAAI0Q1?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXh12sWgAARlR7?format=jpg&name=large)
Its ridiculous.
Good luck to forest if they qualify as im sure they will be worse than us
Sadly i agree tuscans. If anything having teams like brugges villa for example makes it more interesting as open games that could swing either way. But the momey makers dont give a shit about that. They would happily have bayern barce or real win it every year for the next 20 years
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 06, 2025, 06:42:58 PM
I can see why for targeting purposes you would focus on revenue stream not asset realisation profits.Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.No.Does the FFP £400 include player sales too - as we probably won't be selling two more players for £60m+ next season.
No.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
Yes. The Joe money kept us FFP compliant for three years.
The £400m targeted revenue stream does not include player sales. Grealish is nothing to do with it.
How strange then that Monchi specifically said a couple of months ago that player trading was an important part of raising revenue.
And in his question, London Villan specifically referenced the FFP £400m.
Yes, it makes sense why his his target wouldn’t include it, it’s just that I’ve never heard it mentioned that it wouldn’t. For the club though it’s clearly a legitimate revenue stream.
Recruitment, youth development and optimum timing of sales are evidently things we’re really going to have to focus on and excel at. I’m aware that I’m stating the bleedin’ obvious there.
It can be done though. We’re in the richest league in the world, in a country that’s a fertile breeding ground for talented footballers, squads are limited to 25 players - with good recruitment we can afford to pack that 25 with talent from anywhere in the world. In fact, all these factors make competition from below as dangerous to us (AND the greedy 6) as competition from above.
Post by: Dave on March 06, 2025, 07:23:58 PM
Yes, it makes sense why his his target wouldn’t include it, it’s just that I’ve never heard it mentioned that it wouldn’t. For the club though it’s clearly a legitimate revenue stream.
Yup, it's also going to be something within his sphere of influence and control. If he's been tasked with increasing revenue, I imagine one of the first things he does is call Monchi into his office and say "to get our revenues up, let's do that horrible thing that Chelsea do and turn our academy into a footballing livestock factory".
That policy isn't happening independently of Heck.
Post by: Rigadon on March 06, 2025, 07:26:54 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 06, 2025, 07:40:19 PM
What does this actually mean then? That we won't be able to play in Europe next season without a massive player cull? If so, we may as well not bother.
I’d consider that a bit too defeatist. My oft-repeated opinion (and I apologise for that) is that we’re in a really strong position regarding book value of players compared to their market value.
Martinez, Cash, Konsa, Mings, Watkins, McGinn are more or less pure profit. Digne, Buendia and Bailey are not far behind in terms of being amortised. Tielemans, Kamara, Ramsey, Bogarde are fully pure profit. Rogers, Kosta, Garcia cost negligible amounts.
We have plenty of options, and I think there will be a high-ish turnover of players that we could easily come out of in better shape squad-wise. But yes, there could be some uncomfortable realisation of assets ahead. How they are replaced is obviously key.
Post by: Rigadon on March 06, 2025, 08:19:46 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 06, 2025, 09:07:01 PM
Fair enough Percy. Maybe my assessment is overly negative, but jeez, how many draw bridges will be pulled up?
I totally understand the frustration mate. I just choose to be optimistic and then try and work out how it is possible to be so.
Post by: paul_e on March 06, 2025, 09:16:46 PM
What does this actually mean then? That we won't be able to play in Europe next season without a massive player cull? If so, we may as well not bother.
I’d consider that a bit too defeatist. My oft-repeated opinion (and I apologise for that) is that we’re in a really strong position regarding book value of players compared to their market value.
Martinez, Cash, Konsa, Mings, Watkins, McGinn ate more or less pure profit. Digne, Buendia and Bailey are not far behind in terms of being amortised. Tielemans, Kamara, Ramsey, Bogarde are fully pure profit. Rogers, Kosta, Garcia cost negligible amounts.
We have plenty of options, and I think there will be a high-ish turnover of players that we could easily come out of in better shape squad-wise. But yes, there could be some uncomfortable realisation of assets ahead. How they are replaced is obviously key.
This sums up my biggest problem with FFP.
We've improved almost every player in our squad and would, if we sold everyone, make back far more than we've spent and yet nothing in the system recognises that value unless we break the team up. At the same time clubs like Man Utd and Chelsea have wasted huge sums on players that they can't even give away and have the league bending over backwards to let them fudge their way around the rules.
I know that potential value means nothing from an accounting perspective but from a sporting one how we've gone about things to build this squad is clearly a far better model than the path a lot of other clubs have taken. I just can't see why anyone who believes in 'fair play' would support a system that doesn't really give a fuck about how well run a team is from a sporting perspective. The whole sport has been hurt by clubs being turned into businesses when they don't really work as them.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 06, 2025, 09:42:52 PM
.this whole thing is stupid. We have been in CL one season, we dont have the advantage as other sides who have had Cl money season in and season out. How do they expect teams like villa to compete if you are a newbie in CL?
Its ridiculous.
Good luck to forest if they qualify as im sure they will be worse than us
The real question is why are Everton listed in there?
Post by: Demitri_C on March 06, 2025, 10:34:58 PM
Post by: LeeB on March 06, 2025, 10:50:21 PM
What does this actually mean then? That we won't be able to play in Europe next season without a massive player cull? If so, we may as well not bother.
I’d consider that a bit too defeatist. My oft-repeated opinion (and I apologise for that) is that we’re in a really strong position regarding book value of players compared to their market value.
Martinez, Cash, Konsa, Mings, Watkins, McGinn ate more or less pure profit. Digne, Buendia and Bailey are not far behind in terms of being amortised. Tielemans, Kamara, Ramsey, Bogarde are fully pure profit. Rogers, Kosta, Garcia cost negligible amounts.
We have plenty of options, and I think there will be a high-ish turnover of players that we could easily come out of in better shape squad-wise. But yes, there could be some uncomfortable realisation of assets ahead. How they are replaced is obviously key.
This sums up my biggest problem with FFP.
We've improved almost every player in our squad and would, if we sold everyone, make back far more than we've spent and yet nothing in the system recognises that value unless we break the team up. At the same time clubs like Man Utd and Chelsea have wasted huge sums on players that they can't even give away and have the league bending over backwards to let them fudge their way around the rules.
I know that potential value means nothing from an accounting perspective but from a sporting one how we've gone about things to build this squad is clearly a far better model than the path a lot of other clubs have taken. I just can't see why anyone who believes in 'fair play' would support a system that doesn't really give a fuck about how well run a team is from a sporting perspective. The whole sport has been hurt by clubs being turned into businesses when they don't really work as them.
This is spot on Paul.
Still, I think the attitude of the club, from the manager down is we don't moan, we don't make excuses, and we continue to play the hand we're dealt as well as we possibly can.
Any success we have will be ten times sweeter as a result.
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 07, 2025, 12:07:58 AM
My concern is that we will have to sell either kamara or ramsey (as they will be biggest profits makes) to fulfill these rules next summer as we likely wont have the CL money next season
Louie Barry is being fattened calf and would probably be one for player exchange sales or just completely sold.
I would think Juventus pair Junior and El Baron along with Nedlekovic be sold on if needs be.
Any of them before Ramsey or Kamara please.
Post by: tomd2103 on March 07, 2025, 12:26:58 AM
What does this actually mean then? That we won't be able to play in Europe next season without a massive player cull? If so, we may as well not bother.
I’d consider that a bit too defeatist. My oft-repeated opinion (and I apologise for that) is that we’re in a really strong position regarding book value of players compared to their market value.
Martinez, Cash, Konsa, Mings, Watkins, McGinn are more or less pure profit. Digne, Buendia and Bailey are not far behind in terms of being amortised. Tielemans, Kamara, Ramsey, Bogarde are fully pure profit. Rogers, Kosta, Garcia cost negligible amounts.
We have plenty of options, and I think there will be a high-ish turnover of players that we could easily come out of in better shape squad-wise. But yes, there could be some uncomfortable realisation of assets ahead. How they are replaced is obviously key.
I've also got a feeling we might see a couple of our bigger names leave this summer.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 07, 2025, 01:55:19 AM
My concern is that we will have to sell either kamara or ramsey (as they will be biggest profits makes) to fulfill these rules next summer as we likely wont have the CL money next season
Louie Barry is being fattened calf and would probably be one for player exchange sales or just completely sold.
I would think Juventus pair Junior and El Baron along with Nedlekovic be sold on if needs be.
Any of them before Ramsey or Kamara please.
I think Enzo will come back and not be sold until he’s worth an absolute fortune.
Barry probably won’t attract a fee that would tempt us yet. Although there was that summer when Archer and Ramsey II (and one other?) were sold for not much and saved us selling one of the Crown Jewels.
Post by: Louzie0 on March 07, 2025, 02:16:37 AM
Chocolate buttons?
Post by: rob_bridge on March 07, 2025, 07:04:27 AM
I think this our business model now. We may 10 huge steps forward with Emery to be at or near the top table, we may have to take a couple of steps back, regroup and rejoin. Just the way of the world.
Post by: LostInMunich on March 07, 2025, 07:13:14 AM
This sums up my biggest problem with FFP.
We've improved almost every player in our squad and would, if we sold everyone, make back far more than we've spent and yet nothing in the system recognises that value unless we break the team up. At the same time clubs like Man Utd and Chelsea have wasted huge sums on players that they can't even give away and have the league bending over backwards to let them fudge their way around the rules.
I know that potential value means nothing from an accounting perspective but from a sporting one how we've gone about things to build this squad is clearly a far better model than the path a lot of other clubs have taken. I just can't see why anyone who believes in 'fair play' would support a system that doesn't really give a fuck about how well run a team is from a sporting perspective. The whole sport has been hurt by clubs being turned into businesses when they don't really work as them.
Great post. Everyone can see the system has some perverse outcomes, but I hadn't thought about this aspect of it before.
Post by: Olneythelonely on March 07, 2025, 07:28:35 AM
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 08:47:15 AM
I think Kamara will go this summer and Enzo will be his replacement. Ramsey will go in some sort of academy exchange with someone. Watkins will go to Arsenal.
I think Kamara will stay. The sort of clubs that would chuck £70m at us either wouldn't be an upgrade for him or probably don't really need a player in that position enough to justify the spend.
Ramsey - maybe. The logic is sound, but is there someone who would want Ramsey, where he would be happy to go, who has a player of not-dissimilar quality that we would want? It's a vanishingly small list of clubs and players.
Watkins. Reckon you're right. And I think it would work pretty well for all three parties.
The other one that I reckon could be put on the altar as an offering to the PSR gods is Konsa.
Post by: rooboy316 on March 07, 2025, 08:51:05 AM
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 09:04:13 AM
If Garcia keeps going the way he is, we’d get a decent wedge of cash for Cash. Ned/KKH (and our “false 2s” as someone called it: Konsa and Disasi) means we’d be pretty well stocked.
Feels likely that Ned goes to Leipzig though, doesn't it?
Aina is out of contract in the summer, so Cash back to Forest wouldn't be the worst move for all parties if Aina goes somewhere.
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 07, 2025, 09:39:51 AM
It does seem ridiculous though that we are still having to sell anyone for whatever rules are in place. We've made a surplus on trading now two years in a row and turnover will be up by around £150 million this year, so if we are still unable to hold on to players then no-one has a chance. It's even more piss-boiling when we see what the likes of Chelsea and Man C115y are getting away with.
Post by: ChicagoLion on March 07, 2025, 09:51:39 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 07, 2025, 09:55:16 AM
I think Kamara will stay. The sort of clubs that would chuck £70m at us either wouldn't be an upgrade for him or probably don't really need a player in that position enough to justify the spend.
As much as I've thought for quite a while that Kamara is our best player and we should break the bank to give him a long term contract, I think he's the obvious one to sacrifice if we do have FFP issues. He's walk into pretty much every team in Europe so we'd get top money and, if we let him get into his last year, well he's already let one contract run down to get the most money from the next.
Love to get him signed up though, but if he doesn't.....
Post by: rooboy316 on March 07, 2025, 10:02:46 AM
If Garcia keeps going the way he is, we’d get a decent wedge of cash for Cash. Ned/KKH (and our “false 2s” as someone called it: Konsa and Disasi) means we’d be pretty well stocked.
Feels likely that Ned goes to Leipzig though, doesn't it?
Aina is out of contract in the summer, so Cash back to Forest wouldn't be the worst move for all parties if Aina goes somewhere.
Ah yes, I’d forgotten they had a buy out fee included for Ned. Just checked transfermarkt, and he’s started on the bench for their 5 games so far. Come on in 3 of them for a total of 36 minutes.
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 10:35:56 AM
I think Kamara will stay. The sort of clubs that would chuck £70m at us either wouldn't be an upgrade for him or probably don't really need a player in that position enough to justify the spend.
As much as I've thought for quite a while that Kamara is our best player and we should break the bank to give him a long term contract, I think he's the obvious one to sacrifice if we do have FFP issues. He's walk into pretty much every team in Europe so we'd get top money and, if we let him get into his last year, well he's already let one contract run down to get the most money from the next.
He's certainly good enough, but it's a bit like when Emi's value was at its highest after the World Cup, loads of teams would have liked him but he wasn't enough of an upgrade on what they had to justify putting that much money into the position.
Man City have spent £60m on someone in that position to add to Rodri. Bayern spent a similar amount on Paulinha last summer. Arsenal look like they want to sign Zubimendi, having already spent £30m on Merino. Liverpool look pretty settled in midfield although they could admittedly do with another body. Would that be the priority though ahead of what could soon be a complete rebuild of their defence? Barcelona can't afford him, and if they could they'd buy Nico Williams instead. Madrid are stocked there there already.
I guess PSG are the one to look out for, given their current "young and French" ethos. But they're struggling to fit Zaire-Emery into that position already, would they put someone else in his way?
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 10:44:26 AM
If they genuinely want to cover excess then a wage cap is the most sensible way as it addresses the biggest financial problem in the game. FFP /PSR is not fit for purpose.
Who is doing the capping? The FA, Premier League or UEFA?
Because the only effect that would have is just pushing more players to Europe (in the case of the first two) or to the Middle East / MLS in the case of the latter.
I'd argue that "biggest financial problem in the game" is in the eye of the beholder. It's annoying for us, sure. But I'm guessing there are plenty of clubs that don't really see it as much of a problem. Arsenal's wages vs revenue is 53%. Man City's is 58%. Liverpool's is 63%.
Reckon they're probably fine with there being no salary cap.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 07, 2025, 10:51:44 AM
I suppose my fear is that maybe, if we cant agree a new contract, we'd get what we can this summer rather than nothing the next.
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 10:58:24 AM
All sound points, but Kamara is the 'right' age, is better than nearly all those players and can also do a decent job at CH and is money driven.
I suppose my fear is that maybe, if we cant agree a new contract, we'd get what we can this summer rather than nothing the next.
Definitely the contract thing would come into play - but I think he's here until summer 2027. Although I guess if we didn't sell this summer and he didn't extend he'd probably do the same to us as he did to Marseille.
But at least then we'd be getting another two years out of him.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 07, 2025, 11:06:59 AM
The current rules aren't perfect but they're also the only thing stopping some clubs from potentially breaking football.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 07, 2025, 11:13:00 AM
Post by: OCD on March 07, 2025, 11:37:54 AM
Then you've got the co-efficient factor that meant that Man City made more in the Champions League than we did.
it's geared up to make it as difficult as possible for upstarts to challenge the elite.
On the other hand though, once we've become a part of the elite, we'll be glad for it. And it has helped stop Newcastle from just throwing hundreds of millions against the wall through state ownership.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 07, 2025, 11:57:10 AM
All sound points, but Kamara is the 'right' age, is better than nearly all those players and can also do a decent job at CH and is money driven.
I suppose my fear is that maybe, if we cant agree a new contract, we'd get what we can this summer rather than nothing the next.
Definitely the contract thing would come into play - but I think he's here until summer 2027. Although I guess if we didn't sell this summer and he didn't extend he'd probably do the same to us as he did to Marseille.
But at least then we'd be getting another two years out of him.
I am content with that. Of course we offer a new contract but if he doesn't sign then we accept he leaves on a free. That's still two years of value on the pitch plus the fact we can put a succession plans in place (maybe further loans for Enzo and Bogarde so they are both oven ready in 2027).
Post by: London Villan on March 07, 2025, 12:23:20 PM
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 07, 2025, 12:29:50 PM
Is the £50m we'll get for him this summer worth more than an extra season with him in the team?
For £50 million we should keep him for the next two years. This is a world, however, where Chelsea spent £115 million on Moises Caicedo, so I'd suspect we'd be holding out for a lot more than £50 miliion.
Post by: London Villan on March 07, 2025, 01:07:17 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on March 07, 2025, 01:14:58 PM
This is just the price of trying to compete, UE seems to have been used to it pretty much everywhere else hes been.
Post by: Villa in Denmark on March 07, 2025, 01:15:04 PM
Which we would if he had more than 12 months on his contract....
He does doesn't he? 5 year contract in 2022 wasn't it?
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 01:18:43 PM
Quote
23.05.2022
Aston Villa is delighted to announce the signing of Boubacar Kamara on a five-year contract.
The 22-year-old midfielder, who has just won his first call-up to the France national team after a fantastic season at Olympique Marseille, will join Villa following the expiry of his contract with the French club.
Five years = summer 2027
Post by: London Villan on March 07, 2025, 01:20:25 PM
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 01:25:34 PM
So next summer (26) is the cruch time.
Or as PeterWithe suggests, maybe if he's not signing again we decide that £60m is worth taking this summer rather than £30m the summer after or nothing the summer after.
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 07, 2025, 01:46:09 PM
So next summer (26) is the cruch time.
Or as PeterWithe suggests, maybe if he's not signing again we decide that £60m is worth taking this summer rather than £30m the summer after or nothing the summer after.
£60 million still doesn't get anyone to the table this summer - a similar fee to what we got for Diaby or Duran is not enough for someone who would be one of the most sought after midfielders in Europe, and who isn't even 26 years old yet.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 07, 2025, 01:47:06 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 07, 2025, 01:48:57 PM
Next summer I'd be the same I think, whether the January window changed that, according to form is another thing. He's brilliant and almost the first name on the teamsheet.
Post by: PeterWithe on March 07, 2025, 01:56:26 PM
He's brilliant and almost the first name on the teamsheet.
Agreed but we all know how important the financials are, he's far better than Caicedo (sp?) at £110m, I don't think we are letting him walk away for nothing when even a good run in the CL seems to 'only' net you £38m (Celtic?)
Post by: Villan82 on March 07, 2025, 01:59:23 PM
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2025, 02:02:43 PM
So next summer (26) is the cruch time.
Or as PeterWithe suggests, maybe if he's not signing again we decide that £60m is worth taking this summer rather than £30m the summer after or nothing the summer after.
£60 million still doesn't get anyone to the table this summer - a similar fee to what we got for Diaby or Duran is not enough for someone who would be one of the most sought after midfielders in Europe, and who isn't even 26 years old yet.
Perhaps - but we would probably have said similar about Douglas Luiz this time last year.
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 07, 2025, 03:18:44 PM
Post by: Pat Mustard on March 07, 2025, 03:46:22 PM
That's not to say we won't sell anyone, particlularly Kamara if he hasn't extended his deal. I just don't think anyone can have us over a barrel this time on valuations, so the price for him has to start at £80 million+.
Post by: eye digress on March 07, 2025, 09:21:36 PM
Or for Ramsey (see Dave’s post a few pages back)? (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/07/kobbie-mainoo-plans-to-reject-manchester-united-contract-and-move-abroad)
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 07, 2025, 09:26:35 PM
Swapsies?
Or for Ramsey (see Dave’s post a few pages back)?
(https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/07/kobbie-mainoo-plans-to-reject-manchester-united-contract-and-move-abroad)
Not for me thanks.
I think you posted the same story twice. Was there a different one that you meant to post?
Post by: eye digress on March 07, 2025, 09:29:35 PM
I think you posted the same story twice. Was there a different one that you meant to post?Kind of you, but no - just struggled with the url syntax on my mobile. :)
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 07, 2025, 10:20:02 PM
Swapsies?
Or for Ramsey (see Dave’s post a few pages back)?
(https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/07/kobbie-mainoo-plans-to-reject-manchester-united-contract-and-move-abroad)
Mainoo choosing to leave Man U. That’s quite big news, if true, as no player in the last 30 years has chosen to leave Man U.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 07, 2025, 10:57:40 PM
Post by: KevinGage on March 07, 2025, 11:20:22 PM
Particularly in a world where a plodder like Solanke goes to a mid table outfit for £60 million.
But that is always the danger when you sell your best outfield player for €20 million plus a few tracksuits and a bag of spuds last summer. Clubs will come in and think they can take the piss.
Post by: KevinGage on March 07, 2025, 11:21:39 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 07, 2025, 11:30:08 PM
C. Ronaldo, Tevez, Schmeichel from the top of my head.
Fair point, “not many” then. Either way it feels that it could be a shift in their power.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 07, 2025, 11:32:02 PM
Shouldn't be talking about a Rolls Royce like Kamara going for anything like £50 million.
Particularly in a world where a plodder like Solanke goes to a mid table outfit for £60 million.
But that is always the danger when you sell your best outfield player for €20 million plus a few tracksuits and a bag of spuds last summer. Clubs will come in and think they can take the piss.
A bit harsh. It was €50m and we were facing a points deduction had we not sold by the 30th of June.
Post by: Clampy on March 08, 2025, 07:04:13 AM
Shouldn't be talking about a Rolls Royce like Kamara going for anything like £50 million.
Particularly in a world where a plodder like Solanke goes to a mid table outfit for £60 million.
But that is always the danger when you sell your best outfield player for €20 million plus a few tracksuits and a bag of spuds last summer. Clubs will come in and think they can take the piss.
A bit harsh. It was €50m and we were facing a points deduction had we not sold by the 30th of June.
Plus two players came as part of the deal, one of whom is being highly spoken of.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 08, 2025, 07:56:03 AM
If clubs know you must sell then their offers will be tailored accordingly. Man U tried it with Branthwait (?) at Everton.
It could be argued that the merry go round of youth players last summer stopped more piss-takling bids.
Post by: Rigadon on March 08, 2025, 08:17:48 AM
We haven't spent outrageous sums on players, and we've had to sell star payers to balance the books - Unai Emery being brilliant makes able to compete. That should be enough. The continental clubs who feel threatened by the PL are still in the bloody CL / EL / Conference. L and very often win those competitions, so I don't get why this is required.
Post by: Olneythelonely on March 08, 2025, 08:42:20 AM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 08, 2025, 12:15:38 PM
The point is valid though, just exaggerated.
If clubs know you must sell then their offers will be tailored accordingly. Man U tried it with Branthwait (?) at Everton. .
How has he done at Man United this season?
Post by: Somniloquism on March 08, 2025, 01:01:00 PM
The point is valid though, just exaggerated.
If clubs know you must sell then their offers will be tailored accordingly. Man U tried it with Branthwait (?) at Everton. .
How has he done at Man United this season?
He did state "tried". They were hoping to get him on the cheap but we did the swapsies with Tim and Dobbin so they then didn't need to sell Branthwaite at a lesser value, with the bonus we pissed off all the press pets Manure have.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 08, 2025, 01:02:16 PM
The point is valid though, just exaggerated.
If clubs know you must sell then their offers will be tailored accordingly. Man U tried it with Branthwait (?) at Everton. .
How has he done at Man United this season?
He did state "tried". They were hoping to get him on the cheap but we did the swapsies with Tim and Dobbin so they then didn't need to sell Branthwaite at a lesser value, with the bonus we pissed off all the press pets Manure have.
He said "if clubs know you must sell".
Post by: Somniloquism on March 08, 2025, 01:06:13 PM
Quote
United felt they could land top target Branthwaite for £35million, plus another £8million in add-ons, because Everton would have to sell. They thought the Blues would need to raise cash in the transfer market before the June 30 cut-off point for last season’s accounts to avoid falling foul of the Premier League’s PSRs again.
Everton managed to get £10mil for Dobbin though which meant they cleared PSR and then didn't need to sell.
And the same reasoning for Forest to flaunt the rules when they needed to sell Johnson and were originally being offered a lot lower by clubs due to their needs. Still should have been done more than a few points though as they chose not to sell him rather then raise money other ways, especially after buying 20 odd players the same season.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 08, 2025, 02:01:40 PM
And Manure did offer lower then his worth.QuoteUnited felt they could land top target Branthwaite for £35million, plus another £8million in add-ons, because Everton would have to sell. They thought the Blues would need to raise cash in the transfer market before the June 30 cut-off point for last season’s accounts to avoid falling foul of the Premier League’s PSRs again.
Everton managed to get £10mil for Dobbin though which meant they cleared PSR and then didn't need to sell.
And the same reasoning for Forest to flaunt the rules when they needed to sell Johnson and were originally being offered a lot lower by clubs due to their needs. Still should have been done more than a few points though as they chose not to sell him rather then raise money other ways, especially after buying 20 odd players the same season.
That’s the point I was trying, but failed, to make.
Post by: OCD on March 09, 2025, 12:00:59 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 09, 2025, 01:23:24 PM
With record revenue figures this financial year, and the money from the Duran sale, instead of making key sales before 30th June, we'll probably have to do most of our recruitment before then. Especially if we miss out on CL next year. That may well suit Emery though, getting a full pre-season with them.
Good point. Interested to see what happens.
Post by: HolteL4 on March 09, 2025, 02:18:58 PM
Can we sell it again yet?
Can't see why not, Can't we just create a new company in our parent group and that company buys it and keep doing that until either PSR is binned or that loophole is closed.
Post by: rooboy316 on March 10, 2025, 01:54:09 AM
With record revenue figures this financial year, and the money from the Duran sale, instead of making key sales before 30th June, we'll probably have to do most of our recruitment before then. Especially if we miss out on CL next year. That may well suit Emery though, getting a full pre-season with them.Wouldn’t it be part of the 3 year rolling figure anyway, or has that changed?
Post by: ozzjim on March 10, 2025, 08:00:36 AM
Post by: LeeB on March 10, 2025, 09:17:40 AM
And Manure did offer lower then his worth.QuoteUnited felt they could land top target Branthwaite for £35million, plus another £8million in add-ons, because Everton would have to sell. They thought the Blues would need to raise cash in the transfer market before the June 30 cut-off point for last season’s accounts to avoid falling foul of the Premier League’s PSRs again.
Everton managed to get £10mil for Dobbin though which meant they cleared PSR and then didn't need to sell.
And the same reasoning for Forest to flaunt the rules when they needed to sell Johnson and were originally being offered a lot lower by clubs due to their needs. Still should have been done more than a few points though as they chose not to sell him rather then raise money other ways, especially after buying 20 odd players the same season.
We need to make more of the fact we shafted their move for Branthwaite with the Dobbin deal, then took Onana who they wanted, and finally took their best player on loan whilst they sit in 14th.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 10, 2025, 10:32:43 AM
Isn't this summer the last of that and the first of the squad cost ratio crap that makes it even more complicated and even more weighted to the established commercial whales
No. They’re continuing with PSR.
Post by: Concrete Tom on March 10, 2025, 06:01:21 PM
So the accounts must be out there somewhere... just not Companies House yet.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 10, 2025, 09:09:32 PM
Matt Maher of the Express and Star just quoted more than an £80m loss for 23/24 season.
So the accounts must be out there somewhere... just not Companies House yet.
Back Pages Tonight might be worth a watch*.
*I always watch it anyway.
Edit: watched it. We still don’t exist.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 10, 2025, 09:11:17 PM
Matt Maher of the Express and Star just quoted more than an £80m loss for 23/24 season.
So the accounts must be out there somewhere... just not Companies House yet.
Crikey. Whilst we must push the boundaries that sounds like an unsustainable amount. That must include the sales of Luiz and Diaby too, right?
Post by: PaulWinch again on March 10, 2025, 09:20:17 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 10, 2025, 09:20:24 PM
Matt Maher of the Express and Star just quoted more than an £80m loss for 23/24 season.
So the accounts must be out there somewhere... just not Companies House yet.
Crikey. Whilst we must push the boundaries that sounds like an unsustainable amount. That must include the sales of Luiz and Diaby too, right?
Not Diaby, no. He went this financial year.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 10, 2025, 09:28:27 PM
It’s been done to death but the rules do not seem fair as we are generally a well run club and most our signings have come off, so where is the waste.
Post by: caster troy on March 10, 2025, 09:46:41 PM
Post by: Concrete Tom on March 10, 2025, 09:55:33 PM
£80m? Wouldn’t that put us at a £200m loss over the three year period so in breach of PSR?
PSR is a separate calculation. We satisfied PSR by selling Luiz and Kellyman.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 11, 2025, 07:54:31 AM
£80m? Wouldn’t that put us at a £200m loss over the three year period so in breach of PSR?
PSR is a separate calculation. We satisfied PSR by selling Luiz and Kellyman.
So these accounts are the formal version (HMRC) of what’s already been signed off (for PSR)?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2025, 08:25:32 AM
£80m? Wouldn’t that put us at a £200m loss over the three year period so in breach of PSR?
PSR is a separate calculation. We satisfied PSR by selling Luiz and Kellyman.
So these accounts are the formal version (HMRC) of what’s already been signed off (for PSR)?
Yeah. You remember a few months ago when the Premier League said all clubs passed? There were supposed to be a couple/few in danger, but in the end all stayed within the rules.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 11, 2025, 08:31:46 AM
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cx2y7l0dk02o.amp
Post by: sid1964 on March 11, 2025, 08:42:34 AM
If the losses are correct, and we do not qualify for the Champions League next season, then this summer could see us selling a couple of our stars to try and balance the books.
Post by: Goldenballs on March 11, 2025, 02:01:36 PM
Although I don't pretend to know anything about PSR.
Post by: Dave on March 11, 2025, 02:02:44 PM
Post by: Rigadon on March 11, 2025, 02:06:12 PM
Post by: Rigadon on March 11, 2025, 02:06:44 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 11, 2025, 02:06:54 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 11, 2025, 02:08:59 PM
The only fair way of doing this would be to have the same cap for everybody regardless of turnover.
Better still, share turnover, like in the NFL.
Post by: Dave on March 11, 2025, 02:14:11 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 11, 2025, 03:16:30 PM
I know the figures you can get on the internet are largely guesswork but if you look at https://www.capology.com/club/aston-villa/salaries/ it's guessing that the current squad accounts for less than half of what we paid out last season, how is the gap that big? I'm sure some sort of bonus for finishing top 4 is involved but there's got to be something else that's account for a huge portion of that spend.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 11, 2025, 03:18:15 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 11, 2025, 03:19:16 PM
Why is Everton included?
because this is for all clubs in europe, not just those in european competitions?
Post by: Dave on March 11, 2025, 03:19:38 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on March 11, 2025, 03:21:17 PM
Post by: Dave on March 11, 2025, 03:26:56 PM
I took "in European football" on the graphic as the UEFA competitions.
The report is "The European Club Finance and Investment Landscape". You can lose yourself in statistics about gate receipts and stadium projects in North Macedonia, should you wish to do so.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 11, 2025, 04:09:52 PM
Just looked it up 150k a week for onana add that to the 50m we paid for him
Maatsen is on 100k a week. Those two alone have added 250k on our wage bill and have they really contributed much this season?
Post by: Olneythelonely on March 11, 2025, 04:35:58 PM
If those wage figures are correct i would say there is virtually no chance we will sign asensio or rashford in summer without CL next season
Just looked it up 150k a week for onana add that to the 50m we paid for him
Maatsen is on 100k a week. Those two alone have added 250k on our wage bill and have they really contributed much this season?
That makes up around 4.5% of our total wage bill. Given that they’ve had less than a season, one has been trying to usurp one of our best players this season and the other has had an unusual injury record so far, I think our issues are wider than those two examples and might be too soon to judge.
I certainly don’t think us having them has anything to do with the possibility of us signing Asensio and Rashford.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 11, 2025, 06:33:50 PM
If those wage figures are correct i would say there is virtually no chance we will sign asensio or rashford in summer without CL next season
Just looked it up 150k a week for onana add that to the 50m we paid for him
Maatsen is on 100k a week. Those two alone have added 250k on our wage bill and have they really contributed much this season?
That makes up around 4.5% of our total wage bill. Given that they’ve had less than a season, one has been trying to usurp one of our best players this season and the other has had an unusual injury record so far, I think our issues are wider than those two examples and might be too soon to judge.
I certainly don’t think us having them has anything to do with the possibility of us signing Asensio and Rashford.
Even 4.5% that adds alot and you have to take itconsidering they are likely to be hwre next summer too.
Maatsen has been given opportunities but hasnt taken those chances most of the time. He doesnt look good defensively. I dont think he has been that much better than moreno was tbh.
I disagree with your point about onana has had a unusual injury record so far. He was i jury prone at everton too.
Its not just them its the fact that they have contribute to our already inflated wage bill hence why we wont sign eithee without CL football. If we could clear some of the deadwood - dendonker coutinho moreno to name a few that would help. I do think a player will be moved on.
For me i think it would be mcginn. We might still be able to get 20m+ on him and he is getting on abit now. Rather have that ramsey kamara or youri tbh
Post by: Olneythelonely on March 11, 2025, 06:51:51 PM
Even 4.5% that adds alot and you have to take itconsidering they are likely to be hwre next summer too.
Maatsen has been given opportunities but hasnt taken those chances most of the time. He doesnt look good defensively. I dont think he has been that much better than moreno was tbh.
I disagree with your point about onana has had a unusual injury record so far. He was i jury prone at everton too.
Its not just them its the fact that they have contribute to our already inflated wage bill hence why we wont sign eithee without CL football. If we could clear some of the deadwood - dendonker coutinho moreno to name a few that would help. I do think a player will be moved on.
For me i think it would be mcginn. We might still be able to get 20m+ on him and he is getting on abit now. Rather have that ramsey kamara or youri tbh
It adds 4.5% onto the total wage bill. They’re not outliers, I reckon that’s not far off being the average for two players across the top 7 teams in the country.
No point in going into whether a player will be good enough or not, some can see potential in Maatsen, some can’t.
Onana was injured for 39 days in total for Everton, in two seasons. He wasn’t “very injury prone at Everton” at all. For context, Ramsey missed 47 days the season before he did his metatarsal. Tielemans missed 75 days in the two seasons at Leicester before he joined us.
I also think we’ll move players on. But doubt we’ll be moving on Onana and Maatsen. Both were bought with the future in mind I’d have thought.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 11, 2025, 07:07:43 PM
Even 4.5% that adds alot and you have to take itconsidering they are likely to be hwre next summer too.
Maatsen has been given opportunities but hasnt taken those chances most of the time. He doesnt look good defensively. I dont think he has been that much better than moreno was tbh.
I disagree with your point about onana has had a unusual injury record so far. He was i jury prone at everton too.
Its not just them its the fact that they have contribute to our already inflated wage bill hence why we wont sign eithee without CL football. If we could clear some of the deadwood - dendonker coutinho moreno to name a few that would help. I do think a player will be moved on.
For me i think it would be mcginn. We might still be able to get 20m+ on him and he is getting on abit now. Rather have that ramsey kamara or youri tbh
It adds 4.5% onto the total wage bill. They’re not outliers, I reckon that’s not far off being the average for two players across the top 7 teams in the country.
No point in going into whether a player will be good enough or not, some can see potential in Maatsen, some can’t.
Onana was injured for 39 days in total for Everton, in two seasons. He wasn’t “very injury prone at Everton” at all. For context, Ramsey missed 47 days the season before he did his metatarsal. Tielemans missed 75 days in the two seasons at Leicester before he joined us.
I also think we’ll move players on. But doubt we’ll be moving on Onana and Maatsen. Both were bought with the future in mind I’d have thought.
Ask any everton fan they will tell you he was injured alot. 39 games is a lot of games for two seasons for a young player. I do think ramsey is a injury prone player as well btw.
Thats speculation until we can compare other sides i do wonder this but clearly not for most, but our squad we have one of the highest wage bills not just in league but in europe.
Agree with your last paragraph,neither will be sold in summer. I have a horrible feeling its going to be kamara and i think thats going to be a massive mistake
Post by: PeterWithe on March 11, 2025, 09:28:42 PM
Post by: Drummond on March 11, 2025, 09:40:50 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 11, 2025, 09:42:01 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 12, 2025, 05:52:10 AM
39 weeks, bloody hell that's crap...
He was fit in the summer though.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 07:19:30 AM
But if you do look at his injuries it was quite regular
As here
https://staging.premierinjuries.com/newsroom/epl/players/amadou-onana
Post by: Olneythelonely on March 12, 2025, 08:05:02 AM
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/amadou-onana/verletzungen/spieler/485706
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 09:23:52 AM
Just saying that he did pick up regular injuries, although were not long term he did pick up numerous injuries like he has here
I read one tidbit that said said bwcause of the way he plays he tends to pick up a few calf injuries
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 12, 2025, 10:35:40 AM
Post by: paul_e on March 12, 2025, 11:44:16 AM
He missed 5 and 8 league games in his 2 seasons at Everton. I can't be arsed to check how many were through injury, suspension or tactical.
2 games in 22/23
7 games in 23/24 (over 3 injuries, all hamstring related).
His issues this season are hamstring as well so I suspect the club staff will be working with him to address it.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 12, 2025, 05:52:25 PM
I tried going on that not willing to accept the ads and etc.
Not willing to accept ads, is that why he left?
I have to admit, there is a sneaky re-direction ad on there currently. However your one has him missing times when he hasn't, the manager at the time just stating he is suffering from knocks but playing through them which he did.
Post by: IFWaters on March 12, 2025, 06:10:52 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 12, 2025, 06:17:07 PM
Remember this summer we finally lose the wages of Coutinho, Olsen and (sobs) Kourtney Hause. Hopefully we can offload Dendoncker, Buendia and Nedeljkovic plus sadly SJM. There's a few bob in this lot.
I thought Coutinho was 2026, so that’s good news.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 12, 2025, 06:22:25 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 06:30:52 PM
Thats one of the biggest recent financial disasters in years
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 12, 2025, 06:35:27 PM
I cant believe the club felt to give coutinho such a long term contract.
Thats one of the biggest recent financial disasters in years
How many years have to pass for something to still be recent?
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 12, 2025, 06:39:10 PM
More generally, I mean, nothing to do with Coutinho or football.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 06:43:07 PM
I cant believe the club felt to give coutinho such a long term contract.
Thats one of the biggest recent financial disasters in years
How many years have to pass for something to still be recent?
Can you name a more recent financial disaster at the club?
Post by: Brazilian Villain on March 12, 2025, 06:43:30 PM
I cant believe the club felt to give coutinho such a long term contract.
Thats one of the biggest recent financial disasters in years
How many years have to pass for something to still be recent?
Demitri's still upset about the South Sea Bubble.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 06:52:42 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 12, 2025, 06:55:26 PM
I cant believe the club felt to give coutinho such a long term contract.
Thats one of the biggest recent financial disasters in years
How many years have to pass for something to still be recent?
Can you name a more recent financial disaster at the club?
I've been several times since then.
Post by: Smithy on March 12, 2025, 07:41:32 PM
You are aware we signed him in 2022 a mere 3 years ago 😂 you are making out as if it 2012 😉
Under a different chief exec, a different head of recruitment, and a different manager.
It's clearly not worked out as we'd hoped, but let's not pretend that our financial 'mistakes' even come close to outweighing the good decisions. I saw something recently that showed the value of premier league squads against the money paid for them, and we had the biggest difference - so we're doing something right. Seems silly to focus on one bad decision three years ago when the evidence is clear that we've been doing far more things right.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 12, 2025, 07:45:53 PM
- Emile Heskey, made the highest earner at the club aged 31, on a 3.5 year deal, having averaged 5 goals a season over the previous 5 years.
- Shay Given, at 35 years old given a 5 year contract.
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 07:51:45 PM
You are aware we signed him in 2022 a mere 3 years ago 😂 you are making out as if it 2012 😉
Under a different chief exec, a different head of recruitment, and a different manager.
It's clearly not worked out as we'd hoped, but let's not pretend that our financial 'mistakes' even come close to outweighing the good decisions. I saw something recently that showed the value of premier league squads against the money paid for them, and we had the biggest difference - so we're doing something right. Seems silly to focus on one bad decision three years ago when the evidence is clear that we've been doing far more things right.
Im not disagreeing with any of that smithy just merely pointing out coutinho was a financial disaster and i cant wait to see back of him. His wages are absolutely killing us.
Easily the worst investments I can think of in recentish years:
- Emile Heskey, made the highest earner at the club aged 31, on a 3.5 year deal, having averaged 5 goals a season over the previous 5 years.
- Shay Given, at 35 years old given a 5 year contract.
Fucking hell forgot about that shay given one
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 12, 2025, 07:52:23 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on March 12, 2025, 07:53:32 PM
Micah Richards, 4 years and high wages even though we couldn't insure him..he was a free though and he got injured to be fair to him even if he flopped
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 20, 2025, 10:54:26 PM
Vinny asked: I've heard that Villa may have some more PSR issues in the future as the wage bill is huge in comparison to income. Do you know if this is true? If it is true, does the club have a plan for addressing it?
Mike said: I think you can be sure that they have a plan, Vinny. We saw last year – in fact Villa described it after the event with plenty of dramatic detail – that they had a plan to duck under the PSR limbo-bar, and achieved it. We know they've stayed within the rules again so far, but they clearly have a big wage bill relative to their income – the highest proportion of the top 20 clubs on the Deloitte "Money League" on their most recent figures issued in January.
They were only on that list at all because of a significant increase in revenue, and by reaching and prospering in the Champions League – as well as drawing in a hefty profit on Jhon Duran – they are likely to move up that table next time. Their wage bill will be higher too, but a big increase in income should ease the pressure.
Only for one season, though – which is why qualifying for Europe, regularly, is so important for Villa. As you note in your question, the issue is not the absolute size of the wage bill, but its relationship to their income, which must seriously complicate forward-planning.
At this point Villa could conceivably reach any of the three European competitions next season, or none of them. After last summer, I'd be confident that Villa have a plan to stay out of trouble whichever situation arises, but I'm sure Plan A is a lot easier than Plan D.
Post by: Tuscans on March 31, 2025, 11:55:47 AM
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Crystal Palace
• Everton
• Luton Town
• Nottingham Forest
• Sheffield United
• Tottenham Hotspur
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 31, 2025, 12:24:48 PM
Rather than start a new thread
I think other threads do get updated so this should be ok to do.
Let’s keep on top of things.
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 31, 2025, 12:25:52 PM
Premier League clubs (2023-24 season) due to file financials by end of today:
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Crystal Palace
• Everton
• Luton Town
• Nottingham Forest
• Sheffield United
• Tottenham Hotspur
regards this matter .
Post by: Jon Crofts on March 31, 2025, 12:30:58 PM
When will this thread title please be updated to be called PSR as that what it’s called
Rather than start a new thread
I think other threads do get updated so this should be ok to do.
Let’s keep on top of things.
Who made you in charge? You must have forgotten, this is not a democracy.
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 31, 2025, 12:42:04 PM
If things don’t get updated, it gets confusing. Only saying but avoiding updates means issues can arise. If people are having discussions and debate they need to have the accurate terms
The clocks went forward, for example, so not updating them wouldn’t help.
The same situation is here. I don’t know why it hasn’t been updated as FFP to PSR as , as PSR is the correct term used and what the Premier League use.
I only see it as a forum member's duty to help, like every other member would if need be, on any matter so to say FFP is not the term that’s used for Premier League Clubs.
That’s the whole point so point made .
Hopefully it will be revised by the end of the season, or I will have to step in merely because the facts are that PSR and SCR will be current and FFP will be an even more outdated term.
The Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules are staying next season after delay to Squad Cost Ratio rules
PSR will be for at least one more season, Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) rules were set to be introduced in the summer.
SCR limits clubs to spending 85 per cent of their revenue on football costs.
But PSR remains next season
No one is talking about FFP so it the wrong title thread for discussion.
Post by: Somniloquism on March 31, 2025, 12:54:21 PM
Premier League clubs (2023-24 season) due to file financials by end of today:
• Aston Villa
• Chelsea
• Crystal Palace
• Everton
• Luton Town
• Nottingham Forest
• Sheffield United
• Tottenham Hotspur
Not really an issue being as the PL have already had the key items and ok'd them.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 31, 2025, 01:05:12 PM
When will this thread title please be updated to be called PSR as that what it’s called
Rather than start a new thread
I think other threads do get updated so this should be ok to do.
Let’s keep on top of things.
We all know what the thread is related to. No need to change it.
Post by: Jon Crofts on March 31, 2025, 01:16:24 PM
Post by: Tuscans on March 31, 2025, 04:54:32 PM
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 4th place finish in the Premier League in 2024. European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade as we reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League and qualified for the Champions League for the first time since 1982/83.
That momentum has continued into the current campaign, with the team currently in the quarter-finals of the UEFA Champions League, semi-finals of the FA Cup and competing in the league for European places.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion.
The Club has continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment increasing to £16.4m (£13.4m last year), this investment continued into 24/25 with a complete revamp of all our hospitality lounges in advance of our Champions League return, as well as investments in our new retail store, fan experiences and the wider stadium. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year by 27% to £275.7m, up from £217.7m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 4th in the Premier League versus a 7th place finish in the prior year as well as a cup run to the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League. The club also made significant progress on Sponsorship and Commercial revenues, which is set to continue into 24/25.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £85.4m after tax. This compares with a larger loss of £119.6m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Full audited accounts of NSWE UK Limited and NSWE Sports Limited for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 can be found at the following links:
Post by: lovejoy on March 31, 2025, 05:25:38 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on March 31, 2025, 05:39:19 PM
Nothing's popped up yet.
Post by: AV82EC on March 31, 2025, 05:40:59 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 31, 2025, 05:48:15 PM
Post by: AV82EC on March 31, 2025, 05:50:00 PM
Remind me, do the losses get aggregated over a number of seasons or is wages/turnover for each season the measure nowadays?
Still aggregated over 3 years I think but we never see the PSR adjusted loss out with these figures.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on March 31, 2025, 05:56:08 PM
Remind me, do the losses get aggregated over a number of seasons or is wages/turnover for each season the measure nowadays?
Still aggregated over 3 years I think but we never see the PSR adjusted loss out with these figures.
Thank you.
Even with a reduction for allowable losses, I suspect there will need to be a “break even” set of accounts soon. We might even need a surplus to balance the last two years of big losses.
The club appear to be pushing every requirement to the limit. Not because we are badly run, but because that is the only way to close the gap to the Big 6. Long may the owners stay this invested!
Post by: Percy McCarthy on March 31, 2025, 05:58:45 PM
Remind me, do the losses get aggregated over a number of seasons or is wages/turnover for each season the measure nowadays?
Still aggregated over 3 years I think but we never see the PSR adjusted loss out with these figures.
Thank you.
Even with a reduction for allowable losses, I suspect there will need to be a “break even” set of accounts soon. We might even need a surplus to balance the last two years of big losses.
The club appear to be pushing every requirement to the limit. Not because we are badly run, but because that is the only way to close the gap to the Big 6. Long may the owners stay this invested!
Amen.
Post by: AV82EC on March 31, 2025, 05:58:52 PM
Remind me, do the losses get aggregated over a number of seasons or is wages/turnover for each season the measure nowadays?
Still aggregated over 3 years I think but we never see the PSR adjusted loss out with these figures.
Thank you.
Even with a reduction for allowable losses, I suspect there will need to be a “break even” set of accounts soon. We might even need a surplus to balance the last two years of big losses.
The club appear to be pushing every requirement to the limit. Not because we are badly run, but because that is the only way to close the gap to the Big 6. Long may the owners stay this invested!
Well by all accounts if this years figure is anything like the Heck figure quoted above it’ll be this seasons accounts.
Post by: Drummond on March 31, 2025, 06:03:55 PM
Remind me, do the losses get aggregated over a number of seasons or is wages/turnover for each season the measure nowadays?
Still aggregated over 3 years I think but we never see the PSR adjusted loss out with these figures.
Thank you.
Even with a reduction for allowable losses, I suspect there will need to be a “break even” set of accounts soon. We might even need a surplus to balance the last two years of big losses.
The club appear to be pushing every requirement to the limit. Not because we are badly run, but because that is the only way to close the gap to the Big 6. Long may the owners stay this invested!
Amen.
Exactly; not badly run, quite the opposite in fact.
Post by: Drummond on March 31, 2025, 06:04:21 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on March 31, 2025, 08:17:23 PM
Throw in additional ECL related merchandise, tv and sponsorship monies.
PLUS what we've generated from our FA Cup run:
45% of gate receipts from all games - home and away.
£1.41m of prize money up to and including the semi-final
And £125k for each game broadcast live
Looking at £100m more than last season?
And that's without chucking in whatever Mr Heck has done re EPL home game income - not forgetting the upfront fees from Adidas and Betano.
Post by: Footy-Vill on March 31, 2025, 09:07:07 PM
Aston Villa’s published accounts for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 show that the Club has made significant progress against their stated focus of consolidation and improvement.
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 4th place finish in the Premier League in 2024. European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade as we reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League and qualified for the Champions League for the first time since 1982/83.
That momentum has continued into the current campaign, with the team currently in the quarter-finals of the UEFA Champions League, semi-finals of the FA Cup and competing in the league for European places.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion.
The Club has continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment increasing to £16.4m (£13.4m last year), this investment continued into 24/25 with a complete revamp of all our hospitality lounges in advance of our Champions League return, as well as investments in our new retail store, fan experiences and the wider stadium. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year by 27% to £275.7m, up from £217.7m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 4th in the Premier League versus a 7th place finish in the prior year as well as a cup run to the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League. The club also made significant progress on Sponsorship and Commercial revenues, which is set to continue into 24/25.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £85.4m after tax. This compares with a larger loss of £119.6m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Full audited accounts of NSWE UK Limited and NSWE Sports Limited for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 can be found at the following links:
Thank You for this post.
also PSR is clearly the term being used so let us move forward and use this term on title of thread can we stop the perversity already and update things!
Post by: Ads on March 31, 2025, 09:16:45 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on March 31, 2025, 09:27:33 PM
Aston Villa’s published accounts for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 show that the Club has made significant progress against their stated focus of consolidation and improvement.
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 4th place finish in the Premier League in 2024. European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade as we reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League and qualified for the Champions League for the first time since 1982/83.
That momentum has continued into the current campaign, with the team currently in the quarter-finals of the UEFA Champions League, semi-finals of the FA Cup and competing in the league for European places.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion.
The Club has continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment increasing to £16.4m (£13.4m last year), this investment continued into 24/25 with a complete revamp of all our hospitality lounges in advance of our Champions League return, as well as investments in our new retail store, fan experiences and the wider stadium. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year by 27% to £275.7m, up from £217.7m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 4th in the Premier League versus a 7th place finish in the prior year as well as a cup run to the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League. The club also made significant progress on Sponsorship and Commercial revenues, which is set to continue into 24/25.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £85.4m after tax. This compares with a larger loss of £119.6m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Full audited accounts of NSWE UK Limited and NSWE Sports Limited for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 can be found at the following links:
Thank You for this post.
also PSR is clearly the term being used so let us move forward and use this term on title of thread can we stop the perversity already and update things!
Give it a rest for McGraths sake.
Post by: aj2k77 on March 31, 2025, 09:32:52 PM
If we've complied with FFP, I wonder what sort of wiggle room we've got with regards to strengthening come the summer.
I'd imagine sell to buy like last summer again. Bailey, Watkins, Ramsey, Cash, McGinn, Kamara, Konsa and Tielemans all have a lot of FFP value don't they?
Maybe Bailey, Cash and McGinn would be the ones to sell who would affect the first team strength the least?
Post by: Villan82 on March 31, 2025, 09:56:42 PM
Post by: paul_e on March 31, 2025, 10:02:48 PM
I didn't detect anything in that statement suggesting those leaked north stand plans were genuine
They were labelled as a feasibility study, I wouldn't expect anything to be announced until we finish that process and are ready to go ahead with the work.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on March 31, 2025, 10:04:30 PM
Aston Villa’s published accounts for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 show that the Club has made significant progress against their stated focus of consolidation and improvement.
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 4th place finish in the Premier League in 2024. European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade as we reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League and qualified for the Champions League for the first time since 1982/83.
That momentum has continued into the current campaign, with the team currently in the quarter-finals of the UEFA Champions League, semi-finals of the FA Cup and competing in the league for European places.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion.
The Club has continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment increasing to £16.4m (£13.4m last year), this investment continued into 24/25 with a complete revamp of all our hospitality lounges in advance of our Champions League return, as well as investments in our new retail store, fan experiences and the wider stadium. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year by 27% to £275.7m, up from £217.7m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 4th in the Premier League versus a 7th place finish in the prior year as well as a cup run to the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League. The club also made significant progress on Sponsorship and Commercial revenues, which is set to continue into 24/25.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £85.4m after tax. This compares with a larger loss of £119.6m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Full audited accounts of NSWE UK Limited and NSWE Sports Limited for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 can be found at the following links:
Thank You for this post.
also PSR is clearly the term being used so let us move forward and use this term on title of thread can we stop the perversity already and update things!
How many people honestly still think this isn’t a wind up account?
Post by: eamonn on March 31, 2025, 10:07:04 PM
So is this loss figure in line with expectations?
Post by: Chris Harte on March 31, 2025, 10:23:02 PM
Me.Aston Villa’s published accounts for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 show that the Club has made significant progress against their stated focus of consolidation and improvement.
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 4th place finish in the Premier League in 2024. European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade as we reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League and qualified for the Champions League for the first time since 1982/83.
That momentum has continued into the current campaign, with the team currently in the quarter-finals of the UEFA Champions League, semi-finals of the FA Cup and competing in the league for European places.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion.
The Club has continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment increasing to £16.4m (£13.4m last year), this investment continued into 24/25 with a complete revamp of all our hospitality lounges in advance of our Champions League return, as well as investments in our new retail store, fan experiences and the wider stadium. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year by 27% to £275.7m, up from £217.7m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 4th in the Premier League versus a 7th place finish in the prior year as well as a cup run to the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League. The club also made significant progress on Sponsorship and Commercial revenues, which is set to continue into 24/25.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £85.4m after tax. This compares with a larger loss of £119.6m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Full audited accounts of NSWE UK Limited and NSWE Sports Limited for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 can be found at the following links:
Thank You for this post.
also PSR is clearly the term being used so let us move forward and use this term on title of thread can we stop the perversity already and update things!
How many people honestly still think this isn’t a wind up account?
Well done, Fotty-Vill. Keep doing what you're doing. You're doing great.
Post by: Mellin on March 31, 2025, 10:24:44 PM
Me.Aston Villa’s published accounts for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 show that the Club has made significant progress against their stated focus of consolidation and improvement.
Following a change of sporting leadership in October 2022, the performance of the first team improved dramatically and resulted in a 4th place finish in the Premier League in 2024. European football returned to Villa Park for the first time in over a decade as we reached the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League and qualified for the Champions League for the first time since 1982/83.
That momentum has continued into the current campaign, with the team currently in the quarter-finals of the UEFA Champions League, semi-finals of the FA Cup and competing in the league for European places.
This on-field performance improvement has been supported by continued focus on delivery of our long-term strategic plan to enhance the playing squad in a sustainable fashion.
The Club has continued to invest in our infrastructure, with capital investment increasing to £16.4m (£13.4m last year), this investment continued into 24/25 with a complete revamp of all our hospitality lounges in advance of our Champions League return, as well as investments in our new retail store, fan experiences and the wider stadium. These enhanced experiences are a key part of our commercial strategy to increase revenue and improve the long-term financial strength of the Club.
Whilst we continue to seek opportunities to increase the capacity of the stadium, we recognise that this must be done in tandem with improvements to the local transport network. We continue to work with local authorities to find appropriate solutions that will allow fans safe, efficient and affordable access to and from games.
The Foundation has continued its sterling charitable and community-led work, not only delivering hundreds of sessions per week across a wide spectrum of initiatives and outreach programmes but also maintaining financial and networking support to communities and charities across Birmingham and the wider region.
Revenue increased during the year by 27% to £275.7m, up from £217.7m in the previous year. A significant part of this increase is driven by finishing 4th in the Premier League versus a 7th place finish in the prior year as well as a cup run to the semi-finals of the UEFA Europa Conference League. The club also made significant progress on Sponsorship and Commercial revenues, which is set to continue into 24/25.
The net result of these changes is that the Club has reported a loss for the year of £85.4m after tax. This compares with a larger loss of £119.6m in the prior year. It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.
Full audited accounts of NSWE UK Limited and NSWE Sports Limited for the 13 months ended 30th June 2024 can be found at the following links:
Thank You for this post.
also PSR is clearly the term being used so let us move forward and use this term on title of thread can we stop the perversity already and update things!
How many people honestly still think this isn’t a wind up account?
Well done, Fotty-Vill. Keep doing what you're doing. You're doing great.
Agreed.
FULL POST QUOTE
Post by: Chris Harte on March 31, 2025, 10:25:05 PM
Therefore, every game is a cup final.
Post by: cdbearsfan on March 31, 2025, 10:28:05 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on March 31, 2025, 10:40:38 PM
Post by: Mellin on March 31, 2025, 10:45:53 PM
Post by: jon collett on March 31, 2025, 10:51:25 PM
When Drummond or someone cracks and takes out FV it'll be this century's Franz Ferdinand.
Take me out
Post by: Tokyo Sexwhale on March 31, 2025, 10:59:09 PM
If we've complied with FFP, I wonder what sort of wiggle room we've got with regards to strengthening come the summer.
I'd imagine sell to buy like last summer again. Bailey, Watkins, Ramsey, Cash, McGinn, Kamara, Konsa and Tielemans all have a lot of FFP value don't they?
Maybe Bailey, Cash and McGinn would be the ones to sell who would affect the first team strength the least?
Our figures for this season should be even better given our CL money and the sale of Duran; so hopefully it means we don't have to sell anyone that we want to keep; and add 2 or 3 more.
I wouldn't mind if we sold Cash and Bailey; but we shouldn't be selling McGinn.
Post by: purpletrousers on March 31, 2025, 11:25:54 PM
If we've complied with FFP, I wonder what sort of wiggle room we've got with regards to strengthening come the summer.
I'd imagine sell to buy like last summer again. Bailey, Watkins, Ramsey, Cash, McGinn, Kamara, Konsa and Tielemans all have a lot of FFP value don't they?
Maybe Bailey, Cash and McGinn would be the ones to sell who would affect the first team strength the least?
Our figures for this season should be even better given our CL money and the sale of Duran; so hopefully it means we don't have to sell anyone that we want to keep; and add 2 or 3 more.
I wouldn't mind if we sold Cash and Bailey; but we shouldn't be selling McGinn.
Agreed. Practical and sentimental reasons…
When Drummond or someone cracks and takes out FV it'll be this century's Franz Ferdinand.
Take me out
Where do you fancy going?
Post by: jwarry on April 01, 2025, 04:15:19 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 01, 2025, 06:26:24 AM
Meanwhile Chelsea record a profit because they sold their women’s team to themselves which is within the rules apparently 🤷🏼♂️
Well, we need to get on it then. I think we’d have to buy it first as I believe we don’t own it at the moment.
Post by: lovejoy on April 01, 2025, 07:37:37 AM
Meanwhile Chelsea record a profit because they sold their women’s team to themselves which is within the rules apparently 🤷🏼♂️
Well, we need to get on it then. I think we’d have to buy it first as I believe we don’t own it at the moment.
Therein lies the issue. I assumed this was April Fools joke.
Post by: Chris Smith on April 01, 2025, 08:08:14 AM
I remain pro-FV.
I’ve stopped reading his posts.
Post by: sid1964 on April 01, 2025, 08:24:13 AM
Our owners must have very deep pockets to continue to fund our club every season.
Post by: Olneythelonely on April 01, 2025, 08:26:24 AM
Post by: aj2k77 on April 01, 2025, 08:31:20 AM
Meanwhile Chelsea record a profit because they sold their women’s team to themselves which is within the rules apparently 🤷🏼♂️
They sold their own hotels to themselves last season for £80m and the Womens team this season for almost £200m. It's a total farce what they allow Man City and Chelsea to get away with.
Post by: LeeB on April 01, 2025, 08:33:17 AM
if we qualify for either the champions league or another European competition how will we comply with the new European rules next season?
Our owners must have very deep pockets to continue to fund our club every season.
They have incredibly deep pockets, but you’d think there’ll be a limit.
Whatever they've put in, I'm pretty sure it's covered by the value of the club now compared to what they paid for it.
Post by: Dave on April 01, 2025, 08:40:15 AM
Meanwhile Chelsea record a profit because they sold their women’s team to themselves which is within the rules apparently 🤷🏼♂️
They sold their own hotels to themselves last season for £80m and the Womens team this season for almost £200m. It's a total farce what they allow Man City and Chelsea to get away with.
Was it a total farce when they allowed us to get away with selling our own ground to ourselves?
Post by: aj2k77 on April 01, 2025, 08:43:15 AM
Meanwhile Chelsea record a profit because they sold their women’s team to themselves which is within the rules apparently 🤷🏼♂️
They sold their own hotels to themselves last season for £80m and the Womens team this season for almost £200m. It's a total farce what they allow Man City and Chelsea to get away with.
Was it a total farce when they allowed us to get away with selling our own ground to ourselves?
That wasn't the Premier League.
Post by: AV82EC on April 01, 2025, 08:47:13 AM
Meanwhile Chelsea record a profit because they sold their women’s team to themselves which is within the rules apparently 🤷🏼♂️
They sold their own hotels to themselves last season for £80m and the Womens team this season for almost £200m. It's a total farce what they allow Man City and Chelsea to get away with.
Was it a total farce when they allowed us to get away with selling our own ground to ourselves?
That wasn't the Premier League.
It doesn’t matter.
Post by: aj2k77 on April 01, 2025, 08:54:15 AM
Post by: AV82EC on April 01, 2025, 09:00:41 AM
Why do you think the Premier League allow certain clubs a more lenient interpretation of the rules?
They don’t. If we had wanted to sell our ground as a PL club we could have as Chelsea have. I’ve no doubt all clubs will now be looking to sell their Women’s team into a separate legal entity if it makes sense from a PSR perspective. This isn’t hard to understand.
Post by: lovejoy on April 01, 2025, 09:14:10 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 01, 2025, 09:19:48 AM
Post by: aj2k77 on April 01, 2025, 09:29:33 AM
Why do you think the Premier League allow certain clubs a more lenient interpretation of the rules?
They don’t. If we had wanted to sell our ground as a PL club we could have as Chelsea have. I’ve no doubt all clubs will now be looking to sell their Women’s team into a separate legal entity if it makes sense from a PSR perspective. This isn’t hard to understand.
You think Villa would be allowed to sell the womens team for £200m? There's no money in the Womens game. It's shit.
Post by: aj2k77 on April 01, 2025, 10:01:49 AM
Post by: AV82EC on April 01, 2025, 10:02:25 AM
Why do you think the Premier League allow certain clubs a more lenient interpretation of the rules?
They don’t. If we had wanted to sell our ground as a PL club we could have as Chelsea have. I’ve no doubt all clubs will now be looking to sell their Women’s team into a separate legal entity if it makes sense from a PSR perspective. This isn’t hard to understand.
You think Villa would be allowed to sell the womens team for £200m? There's no money in the Womens game. It's shit.
Well of course we wouldn’t get £200m for the women’s team as we’re nowhere near as succcesful as Chelsea. I personally do have an issue with the valuation but not the principle of them being able to do it.
Post by: aj2k77 on April 01, 2025, 10:07:51 AM
Chelsea womens team are worth fuck all. Instead of selling Diaby and Luiz last summer we should have sold Villa ladies for £200m.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 01, 2025, 10:22:37 AM
Post by: Duncan Shaw on April 01, 2025, 10:25:01 AM
Post by: DeKuip on April 01, 2025, 10:40:35 AM
Conkers is an individual sport so it's not really comparable.Not that old chestnut again.
Post by: Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle on April 01, 2025, 11:41:59 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on April 01, 2025, 11:57:06 AM
I'm not adverse to the sale, the question has to be the valuation. No way is a Woman's team worth £200mil when 8x CL winners Lyon are only valued at £45m.
Would it not be the case that they're more valuable because they own land in London? They've got the former Kingstonian/AFC Wimbledon ground. Not sure if they have separate training facilities to the men. Lyon Women have a small stadium outside the city. Stade Gérard Houllier.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 01, 2025, 12:01:26 PM
Post by: London Villan on April 01, 2025, 12:06:34 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 01, 2025, 12:33:32 PM
We will hopefully be using these loopholes to grow, whereas they’ve cashed in the chips to cover up poor management.
Post by: jwarry on April 02, 2025, 07:11:49 AM
On the plus side, Chelsea are establishing bold precedents with the FA which must be applied evenly across the whole pyramid.
We will hopefully be using these loopholes to grow, whereas they’ve cashed in the chips to cover up poor management.
I hope you’re right as I can’t see how we can possibly make a £100m profit next year to stay within PSR - assuming my simple maths of a £200m loss the last two years needs a £100m profit to reach the £105m limit for three years ending March 2026?!?
Post by: LeeB on April 02, 2025, 09:19:21 AM
On the plus side, Chelsea are establishing bold precedents with the FA which must be applied evenly across the whole pyramid.
We will hopefully be using these loopholes to grow, whereas they’ve cashed in the chips to cover up poor management.
They've sold those little blue disabled cars that they used to have parked behind the goal in front of the Shed now.
Post by: AV82EC on April 02, 2025, 09:24:02 AM
On the plus side, Chelsea are establishing bold precedents with the FA which must be applied evenly across the whole pyramid.
We will hopefully be using these loopholes to grow, whereas they’ve cashed in the chips to cover up poor management.
I hope you’re right as I can’t see how we can possibly make a £100m profit next year to stay within PSR - assuming my simple maths of a £200m loss the last two years needs a £100m profit to reach the £105m limit for three years ending March 2026?!?
It doesn’t work like that. The figures you see within the accounts are not those which are used for PSR.
Post by: Drummond on April 02, 2025, 09:26:35 AM
At the time it seemed like a good Idea, in hindsight...
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 02, 2025, 09:54:59 AM
We sold a lot of our assets years ago. We sold our ground under this lot all the land that is now industrial estate under (iirc) Lerner.
At the time it seemed like a good Idea, in hindsight...
Well, it helped get us out of the championship.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 02, 2025, 12:05:50 PM
Quote
Chelsea also have trouble brewing off the pitch.
Uefa will assess the Blues' sale of its women's team to parent company BlueCo at the end of the season.
On Monday, Chelsea reported a pre-tax profit of £128.4m for the year ending June 2024 - their first positive financial results under the ownership of Todd Boehly's Clearlake Capital.
That was largely down to the "repositioning" of their highly successful women's team as a separate business from the men's team, and followed a similar move in their previous financial results - when the club sold two hotels to a sister company to keep them compliant with the Premier League's profit and sustainability rules (PSR).
The Blues have already been cleared of any PSR breaches in January, along with the other 19 top-flight clubs.
However, European football's governing body Uefa has more stringent Financial Fair Play rules which would discount APTs of all its members, including Chelsea's sale of its women's team and two hotels, which were sold for £76.6m during the 2022-23 season.
Post by: Pat Mustard on April 02, 2025, 12:50:06 PM
Post by: Drummond on April 03, 2025, 09:57:05 AM
We sold a lot of our assets years ago. We sold our ground under this lot all the land that is now industrial estate under (iirc) Lerner.
At the time it seemed like a good Idea, in hindsight...
Well, it helped get us out of the championship.
The ground thing I agree with, but all of that other land in the Lerner years I'm sure could have seen us with a new ground, training and and academy set up.
I may be wrong but there was a lot disposed of wasn't there?
Post by: SaddVillan on April 03, 2025, 01:14:18 PM
Aston Villa Football Club Limited
Aston Villa FC Limited
Aston Villa Limited
NSWE UK Limited
Post by: pauliewalnuts on April 03, 2025, 01:19:53 PM
We sold a lot of our assets years ago. We sold our ground under this lot all the land that is now industrial estate under (iirc) Lerner.
At the time it seemed like a good Idea, in hindsight...
Well, it helped get us out of the championship.
The ground thing I agree with, but all of that other land in the Lerner years I'm sure could have seen us with a new ground, training and and academy set up.
I may be wrong but there was a lot disposed of wasn't there?
It was mostly the serpentine but use of that land is limited - they couldn’t build housing there, for example, due to the poor air quality being so close to the expressway.
Post by: SaddVillan on April 03, 2025, 01:23:36 PM
The full year accounts to y/e 30 June 2024 have been lodged at Companies House for:
Aston Villa Football Club Limited
Aston Villa FC Limited
Aston Villa Limited
NSWE UK Limited
Although we'll have to wait a while to look at them:
"This document is being processed and will be available in 10 days."
Post by: Drummond on April 03, 2025, 01:36:28 PM
We sold a lot of our assets years ago. We sold our ground under this lot all the land that is now industrial estate under (iirc) Lerner.
At the time it seemed like a good Idea, in hindsight...
Well, it helped get us out of the championship.
The ground thing I agree with, but all of that other land in the Lerner years I'm sure could have seen us with a new ground, training and and academy set up.
I may be wrong but there was a lot disposed of wasn't there?
It was mostly the serpentine but use of that land is limited - they couldn’t build housing there, for example, due to the poor air quality being so close to the expressway.
Ah, thanks, for some reason I thought we'd sold a lot more than just that patch, the bit between there and Power League was also what I was thinking of
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 05, 2025, 04:17:02 AM
Also, it’s relatively cheap to be competitive in the women’s game, so let’s do that as well. With all these new facilities at VP, we need to be making the place as busy as possible.
Post by: Tuscans on April 05, 2025, 09:56:21 AM
🔑figures
⚽️Revenue £276m ⬆️27%
⚽️Wages £252m ⬆️30%
⚽️Wages £91 for every £100 revenue ⬆️£2
⚽️Amortisation £97m ⬆️4%
⚽️Underlying loss £150m ⬆️8%
⚽️Player sale profits £65m ⬆️188%
⚽️Pre tax loss £86m ⬇️29%
⚽️Player purchases £168m
⚽️Player sales £83m
⚽️Total transfer cost of squad £503m
⚽️Total losses over the years £789m
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GnwDUwQWMAA6M-i?format=png&name=medium)
Post by: olaftab on April 05, 2025, 10:18:07 AM
And did we really have a Director on nearly £3M a year in 2016?
Post by: paul_e on April 05, 2025, 10:20:14 AM
Thank you for posting. All looks very fragile to me.
And did we really have a Director on nearly £3M a year in 2016?
I guess you mean 2016 and I'd assume that will have been a one off payment relating too the sale.
Post by: Footy-Vill on April 05, 2025, 10:26:43 AM
Aston Villa submit 23/24 accounts. Note these cover 13 months to 30 June 2024 to allow player sales in June '24 for PSR
🔑figures
⚽️Revenue £276m ⬆️27%
⚽️Wages £252m ⬆️30%
⚽️Wages £91 for every £100 revenue ⬆️£2
⚽️Amortisation £97m ⬆️4%
⚽️Underlying loss £150m ⬆️8%
⚽️Player sale profits £65m ⬆️188%
⚽️Pre tax loss £86m ⬇️29%
⚽️Player purchases £168m
⚽️Player sales £83m
⚽️Total transfer cost of squad £503m
⚽️Total losses over the years £789m
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GnwDUwQWMAA6M-i?format=png&name=medium)
Post by: Somniloquism on April 05, 2025, 10:33:02 AM
Post by: Tuscans on April 05, 2025, 10:34:30 AM
Post by: DB on April 05, 2025, 10:46:24 AM
Chelsea - 🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Chelsea have breached Uefa’s limits on financial losses for last season after the governing body did not allow the club to count as income selling its women’s team to a sister company for £200million.
Saw that...oh dear, what a choker.
Post by: Lsvilla on April 05, 2025, 11:35:50 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on April 05, 2025, 11:43:02 AM
So they'll get a fine then. Peanuts.
UEFA have kicked teams out of their tournaments in the past for breach of financial rules. I doubt it would happen in this case.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 05, 2025, 01:02:46 PM
So they'll get a fine then. Peanuts.
UEFA have kicked teams out of their tournaments in the past for breach of financial rules. I doubt it would happen in this case.
They'll allow them to retrospectively add in their income from the Club World Cup (or some such nonsense).
Post by: IFWaters on April 05, 2025, 01:04:50 PM
UEFA though is a harder nut to crack as there are very powerful vested interests and they don't want the superleague to happen.
I think it's next season that European PSR limits player wages to 70 or 80% of turnover which at the moment look pretty hard for us to hit unless we sell again.
Post by: IFWaters on April 05, 2025, 01:11:21 PM
252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.
Post by: Tuscans on April 05, 2025, 01:38:06 PM
One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.
252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.
If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.
Post by: IFWaters on April 05, 2025, 01:49:53 PM
One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.
252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.
If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.
Hi it may well do but let's say the club have 200 employees on an average of 50k each that's still only 10 million. Perhaps double that for a few execs you still get less than 10% on non-player salaries.
Post by: Stu on April 05, 2025, 01:55:38 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on April 05, 2025, 02:06:34 PM
Post by: Stu on April 05, 2025, 02:09:26 PM
I'd imagine we will sell as few players as we can get away with, to keep us just under the legal limits, same as we did last year.
I'm a pessimist, cd!
Post by: Tuscans on April 05, 2025, 02:26:29 PM
I suppose it's all guess work. I imagine the gaffer, Monchi and Damian took 10 million last year alone.One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.
252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.
If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.
Hi it may well do but let's say the club have 200 employees on an average of 50k each that's still only 10 million. Perhaps double that for a few execs you still get less than 10% on non-player salaries.
Post by: paul_e on April 05, 2025, 02:38:39 PM
One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.
252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.
If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.
Hi it may well do but let's say the club have 200 employees on an average of 50k each that's still only 10 million. Perhaps double that for a few execs you still get less than 10% on non-player salaries.
I've thought the same, the only explanation I can come up with is that we've paid out a lot in bonuses based on finishing top 4.
Post by: eamonn on April 05, 2025, 04:26:45 PM
Quote
Aston Villa consider selling women’s team to help comply with PSR
Men’s team’s recent success has come at a cost, and club are in danger of breaking Premier League financial rules by making losses of more than £105million over three seasons
Kit Shepard, Women's Football Reporter
Friday April 04 2025, 5.30pm BST, The Times
Aston Villa are exploring selling stakes in their women’s team to help them comply with the Premier League’s financial rules.
The club recorded a £195million loss over the past two years, meaning they are in danger of breaching the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Selling part of their women’s team would offer a new way to reduce losses.
It is understood that multiple Premier League teams with Women’s Super League sides are exploring similar measures after Chelsea sold their women’s team to the club’s parent company to help them avoid breaking PSR. While it is not clear whether Villa would effectively sell to themselves or to external investors, any transaction would provide important revenue.
Villa’s men’s team has enjoyed stellar on-pitch success over the past two campaigns, but it has come at a cost. They reported a loss of £85.4million for the 2023-24 season, a loss of £119.6 million for 2022-23, and a profit of £300,000 for 2021-22. A loss of more than £105million over three seasons constitutes a PSR breach, though spending on infrastructure, youth and women’s football is exempt.
Villa unsuccessfully attempted to have the limit raised to £135million last June and their owner, Nassef Sawiris, told the Financial Times that month that the rules “do not make sense”. The club sold Douglas Luiz, Omari Kellyman and Tim Iroegbunam for a combined £70million just before last summer’s annual PSR deadline.
A women’s team sale, then, may allow Villa and other clubs to stay compliant without last-minute transfer activity.
Selling to the parent company would allow clubs to control the women’s team’s valuation. It is understood that Chelsea valued their women’s team at considerably more than £150million — at least double the forecasts of football finance experts. Equally, that option may be considered an unfair loophole, with the Premier League yet to approve Chelsea’s sale as being of fair market value.
Selling to external investors is more straightforward but clubs risk losing control over the branding and sponsorship of the women’s team through this approach.
Villa’s men are still in the Champions League and FA Cup, and are pushing for a Champions League place in the league. Their women have been less successful this season and sit second-bottom of the WSL table.
Villa have been contacted for comment.
Post by: Mister E on April 05, 2025, 04:53:18 PM
I've thought it for a while but I think this season is going to be the best opportunity we have to get some silverware for a good while, because we're going to cash in on a good few players in the summer.True, although this current fiscal year we have a big upsurge in revenue to offset some of the costs. As ever, it's all down to getting European football (ECL or Europa League) next season.
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 05, 2025, 05:09:10 PM
Chelsea facing Uefa fine and potential ban after overspending
Governing body will not allow Chelsea to count income from £200million sale of women’s team and sale of hotels to sister companies, with club facing ban from Europe if they reoffend.
Chelsea have breached Uefa’s limits on financial losses for last season after the European governing body did not allow the club to count as income selling its women’s team to a sister company for a world-record value of £200million.
The Sunday Times has learnt that Chelsea are now in talks with Uefa over a settlement which is likely to involve the club paying a financial penalty and agreeing to a spending plan for the next three seasons. That plan could include the threat of stiffer sanctions such as exclusion from European competition for a season if they breach the limits again.
The outcome of the settlement is due to be made public by Uefa in mid-May.
Unlike the Premier League, Uefa’s financial rules do not allow clubs to declare income from selling assets to sister companies. As well as £200m from the Chelsea women’s sale to the sister company Blueco 22 Midco Ltd — the actual value was revealed in accounts published by Companies House on Saturday showing a £198.7m paper profit — Chelsea registered income of £76.5m from the sale of two hotels to another sister company in June 2023.
That sum also has to be removed from Chelsea’s balance sheet when it comes to assessing its compliance with Uefa’s limits on financial losses.
Uefa allows clubs to lose a maximum of 200m euros (£170m) over three years and without the income declared from those related-party sales Chelsea have a total three-year loss of £358m. Deductions can be made by the club for spending on youth and women’s teams and on infrastructure so the scale of the breach is not known but is likely to be significant.
Uefa also has a ‘squad cost’ rule that says clubs cannot pay more than 80 per cent of their agreed revenue on player wages, transfers and agents fees. That will reduce to 70 per cent next season.
Sources confirmed Chelsea are already in talks with Uefa over a settlement and ‘sustainability plan’. The owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake, are said to be relaxed about the position and maintaining good relations with Uefa. At least three other European clubs are also believed to be in breach of Uefa’s rules.
The sale of the women’s club and the hotels helped Chelsea pass the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) — the top-flight clubs voted last June against closing the loophole, which allows income from such sales to sister companies to be registered.
Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd’s accounts however warn that the £200m from the women’s club sale is subject to assessment by the Premier League and could be reduced.
The accounts also reveal that the £76.5m value of the hotels sale was not approved by the Premier League and Chelsea have now had to take £6m off and record the actual value of the deal as £70.5m.
A further sum of £17.1m has been recorded as “other operating income” for Chelsea after the club “recharged” the sum to their parent company for the 2022-23 financial year. “It is management’s judgement that the amounts represent costs which were only incurred due to the acquisition of the group by Blueco 22 Ltd and therefore should be borne by the parent company,” the accounts state.
Football financial experts have been sceptical about the high valuation of the Chelsea women’s team. Its accounts show it had turnover of just £11.5m and made a loss of £8.4m last season.
Christina Philippou, a professor in accounting and sport finance specialising in women’s football at the University of Portsmouth, said the figure should “be in the £50m to £80m bracket”.
The most ever paid for a women’s football team was the $250m (about £194m) paid for the United States team Angel City, which plays in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL).
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 05, 2025, 05:09:44 PM
Post by: lovejoy on April 07, 2025, 08:38:07 AM
I believe we will need to cash in on a few players in the summer (Watkins, Bailey and McGinn spring to mind). Even so I am nervous that with no Champions League football our current wage bill in unsustainable.
Post by: Stu on April 07, 2025, 12:03:11 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on April 07, 2025, 12:16:28 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on April 07, 2025, 12:41:33 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 07, 2025, 01:32:14 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 07, 2025, 10:20:41 PM
Our accounts are now available on the Companies House website. We have c£250m in wages and c£100m in transfer fees amortisation so a base cost of £350m to cover.
I believe we will need to cash in on a few players in the summer (Watkins, Bailey and McGinn spring to mind). Even so I am nervous that with no Champions League football our current wage bill in unsustainable.
The stated revenue last year was £276m, so doesn’t the extra CL money pretty much cover the gap? I’ve seen £70m mentioned…
Post by: lovejoy on April 07, 2025, 10:42:43 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 07, 2025, 10:54:44 PM
Id say our cost base has increased since then though. Let’s see.
True. We also have a hole to fill from years 1 and 2 of the rolling 3 year cycle.
Post by: AV82EC on April 07, 2025, 10:57:35 PM
Our accounts are now available on the Companies House website. We have c£250m in wages and c£100m in transfer fees amortisation so a base cost of £350m to cover.
I believe we will need to cash in on a few players in the summer (Watkins, Bailey and McGinn spring to mind). Even so I am nervous that with no Champions League football our current wage bill in unsustainable.
The stated revenue last year was £276m, so doesn’t the extra CL money pretty much cover the gap? I’ve seen £70m mentioned…
Heck has stated a month or so back he thinks the revenue/turnover figure for this season will land around the £360-£370m mark. I think it may be slightly higher as we’ve since progressed to CL Qtrs and FA Cup semi and are higher up the league so maybe another £10-20m. However as lovejoy has just stated I’m sure costs on the other side of that equation have gone up as well but by nowhere near as much as the increase in CL revenue would be my guess. Of course the figures above don’t include player trading profit or loss so may be considerably higher or lower depending on what we do transfer wise.
Post by: Tuscans on April 08, 2025, 11:40:10 AM
By Jacob Tanswell and Chris Weatherspoon
Aston Villa’s senior figures acknowledge selling key players is par for the course.
Raising additional funds is critical for the overall running of the business, especially after a £119.6million post-tax loss in the 2022-23 season and now, following the 2023-24 campaign, an £85.9m post-tax deficit. Across two seasons, Villa have suffered post-tax losses of more than £200m ($254m).
Staying in line with profit and sustainability rules (PSR) will remain a constant challenge and is determined by Villa’s appeal on the pitch. The more success, the more revenue and transfer spend.
From Villa’s standpoint, deep investment was required to generate significant change — as shown in Unai Emery’s tenure, transforming a relegation-threatened side to a Champions League one — with hefty losses seen as inevitable. The hope is that, in time, the success Emery has led will bridge the gap. Whether Villa can do it all within a PSR timeframe is the more pressing matter.
Regardless of whether Villa secure Champions League football for another campaign, staying in line with PSR — which dictates teams cannot incur losses of over £105m over a three-year period — requires players to be sold. Villa accept this given that with costs higher than current revenues, the deficit will need to be covered by transfer departures this summer.
Here, The Athletic takes a look at some of the key talking points.
What are the headline figures?
Villa lost £85.9m pre-tax last season, which, though a £34.4m (29 per cent) improvement on 2022-23, was still the club’s third-worst financial result in history. It takes their pre-tax loss since the July 2018 takeover by Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens to £411.4m.
The duo injected £148.2m in equity funding last season, taking their total funding at the helm beyond the £600m mark. A further £94m was provided in the second half of 2024.
That funding has often — though not always — gone on improving the playing squad. Villa spent £167.6m on new players — the fourth time in five years they have topped £100m. The cost of assembling their squad sat at £503.1m at the end of last June, which was the eighth highest in England but did trail seventh-placed Newcastle United by more than £100m.
By contrast, Villa’s wage bill was £252m last season, topping Newcastle and Tottenham Hotspur. That marked a club record and was England’s sixth-highest wage bill, which still meant finishing fourth was an overachievement. The wage bill — up 30 per cent on 2022-23 — included bonuses for achieving Champions League qualification.
What do these accounts tell us?
The immediate threat of PSR may not be quite as relenting as last year, but for a club whose revenues are not comparable to the top European-calibre teams Villa want to compete with and against, it will remain the elephant in the room.
In the previous set of accounts where Villa posted the worst financial result in Europe — according to UEFA’s Club Finance and Investment Landscape report — they had the ninth-highest revenue in the Premier League (£217.7m), behind teams such as West Ham United (£236.7m) and Newcastle (£250.3m).
Though Villa’s revenue has markedly improved, owing to unlocking Champions League riches, a major issue impacting this is their stadium capacity. West Ham, for example, boast a ground that holds 20,000 more spectators than Villa Park’s 42,640.
It is not lost on senior figures that their desire to transform the club is much harder and slower than in the age before PSR, where the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City could accelerate progression with few spending limits.
What are the positive signs and what should cause worry?
Villa are taking steps to increase revenue streams and break beyond its ceiling. In December, they announced a regeneration project at Villa Park, which includes a 3,500-seater venue for “year-round entertainment”, larger areas outside the stadium and a plaza that connects the stadium with the club shop. Investment in infrastructure does not impact the bottom line (at least not until it is built and generating income), which means Villa can invest in methods that will grow revenue and ease PSR longer term.
Villa’s income is rising, up 27 per cent in a year and 145 per cent in the past decade. All three income streams grew in 2023-24 and the club were able to increase gate receipts by nearly 50 per cent to £28m. That is still well behind Newcastle (£50.1m) and West Ham (£44.6m).
Arguably more impressive was commercial income, where Villa’s takings rose to £63.3m. Commercial revenues are up £24.2m in just two years and should rise again in 2024-25 following new deals with Adidas and Betano, alongside an upgrade in the sleeve sponsor agreement with Trade Nation.
Despite rising revenues, Villa’s costs have generally grown faster. A record wage bill meant wages as a proportion of turnover hit 91 per cent — the worst of any Premier League club last season. Those European bonuses will have impacted the figure, but the club’s surge from the Championship to the Champions League has come at a cost.
The cash lost from day-to-day operations worsened last year to £47.7m and was the second-highest operating cash outflow in club history after the 2018-19 Championship promotion season.
The hope is operating cash flow will improve with sustained forays into the lucrative Champions League, but it’s clear why Sawiris and Edens have been so loose with the purse strings to date. On top of operating cash outflow, Villa’s net cash transfer payments topped £100m last year, too.
Though redeveloping Villa Park’s North Stand was shelved in late 2023, Villa have not shirked infrastructure investment under Sawiris and Edens. They spent £16.4m cash on capital expenditure last season, taking the tally since their takeover to £69.4m. In the six years before their arrival, that figure was £12.9m.
Are they close to breaching PSR?
Villa were deemed compliant with last year’s accounts but did not soften their frustration towards current PSR guidelines. In June, Sawiris said he was considering taking legal action against PSR rules.
Around this time, Villa had proposed to raise the maximum permitted losses from £105m to £135m last year, but that was rejected at the Premier League’s annual general meeting.
Villa are skirting trouble with — and are expected to incur a considerable fine from — UEFA’s PSR limits, which restricts spending on “player and coach wages and transfers and agent fees to 70 per cent of the club’s revenue” from the 2025-26 season onwards. This year, Villa have to fall below 80 per cent, having been above the 90 per cent limit in the 2023-24 campaign.
Domestically, last season’s accounts lay bare how tight things became, too. Across the 2022-24 PSR cycle, Villa’s pre-tax loss was £205.8m, meaning the club needed £100m in deductible expenditure to hit the £105m PSR limit.
Conveniently, and unlike just about every other club in the land, Villa disclose key deductibles in their accounts. Across the last three seasons, they spent £48.1m on youth development costs, £14.6m on community development and a further £13.3m on their women’s team. Combined with depreciation on fixed assets, this reduced Villa’s pre-tax loss by around £90m — though that still leaves them £11m shy of compliance.
The Premier League brought no new charges following Villa’s 2023-24 financials, so we know they complied last season. They extended their accounting period, ostensibly to book sufficient player sales in 2023-24 to avoid a PSR breach, but clubs still have to calculate their PSR result over a 36-month period.
To that end, extended accounting periods, like Villa’s 13-month 2023-24 accounts, have to be prorated. It isn’t as simple as just taking 12/13ths of that year’s figures. It’s unclear, but the likelihood is this prorating resulted in Villa coming in under the £105m loss limit — just.
What is clearer is that the last-minute deal, in an accounting sense, to sell Douglas Luiz to Juventus last June spared Villa from a PSR charge. Douglas Luiz departed for Turin for €50m, with Samuel Iling-Junior and Enzo Barrenechea coming the other way. Without the profit booked on the midfielder’s sale — around £40m — and the £10m earned from Everton in a similar deal that saw Villa sell Tim Iroegbunam and acquire Lewis Dobbin, the pre-tax loss in the last PSR cycle would have topped £250m.
Going forward, Villa will benefit from a huge increase in broadcast money this season. Their Champions League run has earned them an estimated €80m-plus in Champions League prize money.
Yet they will suffer from 2021-22, when they made a £0.4m pre-tax profit, falling off their PSR calculation, as well as another expected increase in the underlying wage bill and continued squad improvements.
The accounts disclose Villa’s net spend between July 1 and October 9 was positive at £27.3m, which doesn’t include the £19.4m spent on Donyell Malen in January or any costs involved in the arrivals of Marcus Rashford, Marco Asensio and Axel Disasi. The £64.3m sale of Jhon Duran to Al Nassr looks to have been required work from a PSR perspective.
How will it impact their transfer planning this summer?
Villa have large assets, with the current standing and Champions League campaign meaning they can ask for significant fees. This happened with Duran in the recent transfer window; had Villa been a mid-table side and Duran had not scored the goals he did in the Champions League, they would not have commanded that level of fee.
There are several players with suitors. Villa have informed Boubacar Kamara they wish to extend his contract, but he is on other teams’ shortlists, as well as Jacob Ramsey, Morgan Rogers, Leon Bailey and Ollie Watkins.
Should Villa qualify for the Champions League again, Emery will want a similarly big squad and will intend to acquire top-level pedigree. Throughout, however, consideration must be given to who leaves.
Will Champions League riches help? As Villa sources, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect relationships, point out, financial success always comes after on-pitch success.
For context, last season’s Conference League campaign, which ended in the semi-finals, raised €16.2m. Now in the quarter-finals of the Champions League, Villa will make more than €100m from prize money and improved gate receipts.
If they come through a fairly daunting quarter-final with Paris Saint-Germain, it won’t just provide on-pitch glee. A further €15m in prize money awaits.
Sources who share existing knowledge of recent deals have told The Athletic that commercial agreements with Villa include ‘kickers’. This means the club will receive additional revenue every time they qualify for the Champions League.
Other recent commercial partnerships, such as with new front-of-shirt sponsor Betano, have incentivised clauses: Villa will unlock a new amount of sponsorship money from the betting company upon qualification. The same is true with existing shirt sleeve sponsor Trade Nation, with Villa using its better position to negotiate a more lucrative agreement for next season.
Post by: Rigadon on April 08, 2025, 12:47:55 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 08, 2025, 07:10:32 PM
Would selling Bailey cover it? If so, I approve this strategy.
I suppose it will all be based on where we finish at the end of the season. But even in a best case scenario we’ll be looking to get rid of Dendonker and Coutinho first.
Post by: DB on April 08, 2025, 08:02:32 PM
Would selling Bailey cover it? If so, I approve this strategy.
I suppose it will all be based on where we finish at the end of the season. But even in a best case scenario we’ll be looking to get rid of Dendonker and Courinho first.
Add Buendia too.
We will be ok without selling any of our first choices I reckon.
Post by: IFWaters on April 08, 2025, 09:00:34 PM
I could see McGinn at Celtic to finish his career.
Not pleasant but they will move on some time.
Post by: Dave on April 08, 2025, 09:10:46 PM
To make that spreadsheet work, accepting a big loss on Buendia or Coutinho's transfer fee and just losing their wages from next years books doesn't really move the dial. The thing that moves the dial is buying an interesting young Colombian for £12m and selling him for £70m. Or getting a similarly panicky club to buy a 19 year old youth player for £20m and we buy one of theirs for £20m. it's the profit bit that needs to go up, not making the wages for next year go down a bit less.
So if people who know stuff are talking about selling players for PSR reasons, saving £70k per week next year for Dendoncker isn't the way we're doing that. My money is still on Watkins to Arsenal.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 08, 2025, 09:21:20 PM
Post by: Dave on April 08, 2025, 09:25:00 PM
Using the Buendia example above, Most of his £30m fee will have been amortised over the X years he has been here, so the fee would not need to be massive (or in excess of the original fee) to register a profit.
It'll register a profit - but it won't register a "fix our PSR problems" profit.
Post by: paul_e on April 08, 2025, 09:29:55 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 08, 2025, 09:41:35 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 08, 2025, 09:43:33 PM
Using the Buendia example above, Most of his £30m fee will have been amortised over the X years he has been here, so the fee would not need to be massive (or in excess of the original fee) to register a profit.
It'll register a profit - but it won't register a "fix our PSR problems" profit.
You never know. Without reading the anrticle again, I think there was some mention of an £11m shortfall previously. So at about that level it might do the job.
I think Cash will go, which will be more or less pure profit, maybe McGinn and Watkins as they would be too.
Post by: Beard82 on April 08, 2025, 09:47:33 PM
I think Bailey will be cashed in on. Maybe Luca Dinge. Getting Dendonker, Olsen and Courtinhio off the books would be good due to there salaries.
Maybe some of the youngsters? One thing I dont get - is the value we add to players doesnt get accounted for. i.e. our balance sheet must be stronger as (for example) Rogers has increased in value by 80m
Post by: Beard82 on April 08, 2025, 09:48:41 PM
Cant see McGinn generating much. Watkins will either go this summer or not for yearsUsing the Buendia example above, Most of his £30m fee will have been amortised over the X years he has been here, so the fee would not need to be massive (or in excess of the original fee) to register a profit.
It'll register a profit - but it won't register a "fix our PSR problems" profit.
You never know. Without reading the anrticle again, I think there was some mention of an £11m shortfall previously. So at about that level it might do the job.
I think Cash will go, which will be more or less pure profit, maybe McGinn and Watkins as they would be too.
Post by: paul_e on April 08, 2025, 09:55:28 PM
I think well see someone go - its all an accountancy game - so maybe selling Watkins, but bringing in Rashford (for example). Not that in any real-terms it puts us financially better off but lets us off.
I think Bailey will be cashed in on. Maybe Luca Dinge. Getting Dendonker, Olsen and Courtinhio off the books would be good due to there salaries.
Maybe some of the youngsters? One thing I dont get - is the value we add to players doesnt get accounted for. i.e. our balance sheet must be stronger as (for example) Rogers has increased in value by 80m
The last bit is why I don't like ffp, not being able to recognise those value increases without selling players is a big flaw and is it another thing that encourages the farming aspect of academies.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 08, 2025, 09:56:48 PM
I think it can summarised as follows:
In the past three years we were compliant, as proven by the absence of sanctions from the PL.
In round numbers the last three year’s losses were £0, £120m, £86m
In the same period we had £90m of expenses that can be off-set/deducted (youth, community, women’s footy)
£206m-£90m = pretty damn closer to the £105m threshold. Probably the £11m hole Percy mentions above.
The elephant in the room is the “£0 loss” year drops away in the next three year cycle. Therefore, by my dirty maths we need to break even his season which is an improvement of £86m compared to the latest set of accounts.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on April 08, 2025, 10:25:55 PM
Post by: Beard82 on April 08, 2025, 10:26:31 PM
It also works in reverse - a player cant be sold at a loss. Which means a bad injury or loss of form means they are more valuable as a ball boy then moving on. Its works for no one.I think well see someone go - its all an accountancy game - so maybe selling Watkins, but bringing in Rashford (for example). Not that in any real-terms it puts us financially better off but lets us off.
I think Bailey will be cashed in on. Maybe Luca Dinge. Getting Dendonker, Olsen and Courtinhio off the books would be good due to there salaries.
Maybe some of the youngsters? One thing I dont get - is the value we add to players doesnt get accounted for. i.e. our balance sheet must be stronger as (for example) Rogers has increased in value by 80m
The last bit is why I don't like ffp, not being able to recognise those value increases without selling players is a big flaw and is it another thing that encourages the farming aspect of academies.
Post by: Beard82 on April 08, 2025, 10:28:14 PM
I’ve read the article a couple of times. It’s like one of those puzzles where the more you stare at it the more you see.I would think this year, with our player trading must be net positive - plus increased revenue.
I think it can summarised as follows:
In the past three years we were compliant, as proven by the absence of sanctions from the PL.
In round numbers the last three year’s losses were £0, £120m, £86m
In the same period we had £90m of expenses that can be off-set/deducted (youth, community, women’s footy)
£206m-£90m = pretty damn closer to the £105m threshold. Probably the £11m hole Percy mentions above.
The elephant in the room is the “£0 loss” year drops away in the next three year cycle. Therefore, by my dirty maths we need to break even his season which is an improvement of £86m compared to the latest set of accounts.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 08, 2025, 10:40:32 PM
The sale of Duran is not included in these numbers is it? That’s about £130m with the CL money.
Or Diaby. On the flipside Onana and Maatsen erode the income, plus increased wages for Rashford and Asensio.
Regardless, unless we plan major surgery of the squad I think we could bridge the gap without selling a one of the Crown Jewels like Ramsey or Rogers. Cash seems a candidate now we have Garcia. I doubt both Buendia or Bailey will still be at the club too. Barkley too.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 08, 2025, 11:32:24 PM
Almost fully amortised:
Martinez
Cash
McGinn
Mings
Watkins
Bailey
Buendia
Olsen
Over half amortised:
Digne
Relatively big money owed:
Maatsen
Torres
Malen
Onana
Negligible fee/book value:
Garcia
Barkley
Kosta
Rogers
Iling-Junior
Barranechea
Pure profit:
Tielemans
Kamara
Bogarde
Ramsay
Kessler
Barry
Coutinho and Dendonker can go for anything that doesn’t represent a crystallised loss, unless it makes financial sense to pay them off in this year of unusually high revenue, which given there’s a three-year rolling accounting period, it probably doesn’t.
Post by: Garyth on April 09, 2025, 05:23:53 AM
Post by: OCD on April 09, 2025, 05:46:00 AM
The sale of Duran is not included in these numbers is it? That’s about £130m with the CL money.
Nor the Diaby sale. That's best part of £150m between those 2. Something the Mail conveniently forget when they say we need to sell someone.
Post by: OCD on April 09, 2025, 05:47:22 AM
The sale of Duran is not included in these numbers is it? That’s about £130m with the CL money.
Or Diaby. On the flipside Onana and Maatsen erode the income, plus increased wages for Rashford and Asensio.
Regardless, unless we plan major surgery of the squad I think we could bridge the gap without selling a one of the Crown Jewels like Ramsey or Rogers. Cash seems a candidate now we have Garcia. I doubt both Buendia or Bailey will still be at the club too. Barkley too.
The likes of Onana and Maatsen will be amortized over 5 years so it won't erode it that fast.
Post by: lovejoy on April 09, 2025, 05:52:20 AM
Post by: VillaTim on April 09, 2025, 11:42:40 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 09, 2025, 11:47:47 AM
Post by: DB on April 09, 2025, 11:52:19 AM
i can see Watkins and Bailey going in the summer so that should be another £100m incoming
We won't need to sell those. If we do (especially Bailey) it will be for Footballing reasons. There are other options in the current squad that would go for PSR.
Post by: SaddVillan on April 09, 2025, 12:43:37 PM
One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.
252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.
If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.
Hi it may well do but let's say the club have 200 employees on an average of 50k each that's still only 10 million. Perhaps double that for a few execs you still get less than 10% on non-player salaries.
I've thought the same, the only explanation I can come up with is that we've paid out a lot in bonuses based on finishing top 4.
These numbers cone from the accounts of NSWE UK Ltd, which is the company through which Wes and Nasif own Villa. Thexaccounts state that the principal activity of the business is running a professional football club.
NSWE has no employees and the figures relate to Villa.
Players, football management and coaching 270
Commercial, merchandising,, operations and foundation 253
Maintenance and admin 86
Parr time matchday l and other events 450
Wages and salaries £218.6m
NI £32.6m
Pension £0.8m
Post by: paul_e on April 09, 2025, 01:24:05 PM
I've thought the same, the only explanation I can come up with is that we've paid out a lot in bonuses based on finishing top 4.
These numbers cone from the accounts of NSWE UK Ltd, which is the company through which Wes and Nasif own Villa. Thexaccounts state that the principal activity of the business is running a professional football club.
NSWE has no employees and the figures relate to Villa.
Players, football management and coaching 270
Commercial, merchandising,, operations and foundation 253
Maintenance and admin 86
Parr time matchday l and other events 450
Wages and salaries £218.6m
NI £32.6m
Pension £0.8m
Yep, I saw that but it doesn't break that figure down enough to be useful in understanding why the wages are that high.
For coaches, players, etc the first team squad is, at a guess, about 40 people. If we also make an assumption that, at most, £20m of that is on academy/youth/etc. Then you still have the average wage of those 40 being the best part of £5m a year. That's a fair bit higher than the estimates here - https://www.capology.com/club/aston-villa/salaries/2023-2024/ - which seem reasonable. As I say I suspect we've paid something like another £30-40m in bonuses for making the champions league, it's the only way the numbers make sense to me.
Post by: rob_bridge on April 09, 2025, 01:49:12 PM
I'd say to generate revenue one of Kamara Tielmans o Ramsey will go. Unless some Arabs bid 70m for Onana.
I'd see us signing one of high profile loanees back. Maybe Asensio for a full season.
Post by: Stu82 on April 09, 2025, 02:25:45 PM
I've thought the same, the only explanation I can come up with is that we've paid out a lot in bonuses based on finishing top 4.
These numbers cone from the accounts of NSWE UK Ltd, which is the company through which Wes and Nasif own Villa. Thexaccounts state that the principal activity of the business is running a professional football club.
NSWE has no employees and the figures relate to Villa.
Players, football management and coaching 270
Commercial, merchandising,, operations and foundation 253
Maintenance and admin 86
Parr time matchday l and other events 450
Wages and salaries £218.6m
NI £32.6m
Pension £0.8m
Yep, I saw that but it doesn't break that figure down enough to be useful in understanding why the wages are that high.
For coaches, players, etc the first team squad is, at a guess, about 40 people. If we also make an assumption that, at most, £20m of that is on academy/youth/etc. Then you still have the average wage of those 40 being the best part of £5m a year. That's a fair bit higher than the estimates here - https://www.capology.com/club/aston-villa/salaries/2023-2024/ - which seem reasonable. As I say I suspect we've paid something like another £30-40m in bonuses for making the champions league, it's the only way the numbers make sense to me.
Wouldn’t the personnel numbers for NSWE include all the football clubs they have an interest in?
Also cannot believe for one moment Villa would pay bonuses of £30-40 million for getting to Champs league.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on April 09, 2025, 10:05:28 PM
Post by: Grande Pablo on April 10, 2025, 01:58:42 PM
Pfft, could have done with Doug, Diaby and Duran today. Sadly the rules do not allow it.
I think we’d have been worse off - Doug went missing at the best of times.
I’d be interested to learn more as to how FFP & PSG get on together. To be the best you have to beat the best but the playing field should be reasonably level.
Post by: Drummond on April 10, 2025, 02:11:10 PM
Pfft, could have done with Doug, Diaby and Duran today. Sadly the rules do not allow it.
I think we’d have been worse off - Doug went missing at the best of times.
I’d be interested to learn more as to how FFP & PSG get on together. To be the best you have to beat the best but the playing field should be reasonably level.
Luiz would have conceded a bunch of free-kicks on the edge of the box.
Post by: tomd2103 on April 10, 2025, 02:12:22 PM
Pfft, could have done with Doug, Diaby and Duran today. Sadly the rules do not allow it.
I think we’d have been worse off - Doug went missing at the best of times.
I’d be interested to learn more as to how FFP & PSG get on together. To be the best you have to beat the best but the playing field should be reasonably level.
Not exactly sure what I'm looking at when I'm looking at financial figures, but from what I've read it looks like their annual revenue is around the €800m mark, whereas ours was €310.2m last year.
Post by: Dave on April 10, 2025, 02:35:28 PM
Pfft, could have done with Doug, Diaby and Duran today. Sadly the rules do not allow it.
I think we’d have been worse off - Doug went missing at the best of times.
I’d be interested to learn more as to how FFP & PSG get on together. To be the best you have to beat the best but the playing field should be reasonably level.
Not exactly sure what I'm looking at when I'm looking at financial figures, but from what I've read it looks like their annual revenue is around the €800m mark, whereas ours was €310.2m last year.
And while they spend (and have previously spent) stupid money on players, the money they've spent on the current squad isn't *that* crazy.
Vitinha and Fabian Ruiz combined cost them about the same as we paid for Onana. Nuno Mendes cost the same as Maatsen. Yeah, they spent £200m on their four main attackers, but that's not really any different to what Bayern / Man City / Chelsea / Liverpool etc have spent on theirs.
Post by: OCD on April 10, 2025, 03:24:18 PM
Post by: Smithy on April 10, 2025, 03:53:52 PM
Pfft, could have done with Doug, Diaby and Duran today. Sadly the rules do not allow it.
I think we’d have been worse off - Doug went missing at the best of times.
I’d be interested to learn more as to how FFP & PSG get on together. To be the best you have to beat the best but the playing field should be reasonably level.
Not exactly sure what I'm looking at when I'm looking at financial figures, but from what I've read it looks like their annual revenue is around the €800m mark, whereas ours was €310.2m last year.
And while they spend (and have previously spent) stupid money on players, the money they've spent on the current squad isn't *that* crazy.
Vitinha and Fabian Ruiz combined cost them about the same as we paid for Onana. Nuno Mendes cost the same as Maatsen. Yeah, they spent £200m on their four main attackers, but that's not really any different to what Bayern / Man City / Chelsea / Liverpool etc have spent on theirs.
They've gone from trying to build their own "galactico" side of incredibly talented world-renowned individuals with the likes of Neymar, Messi and Mbappe (and the associated cost of doing so), to buying younger players with incredible potential, but not yet the reputation and CV of a galactico (and therefore lower wages). They won't always get it right, but they have bought brilliantly in the last couple of years.
They paid a lot of money for the likes of Doue, Neves, Barcola and Kvaratskhelia (all in the 40-50m+ range) - but they were among the most promising young talents in world football, while also not yet being at the "Galactico" level. It's a strategy that appears to have paid off for them, as they're not only very good players, but they work incredibly hard too.
To think Wolves passed up on the option to buy Vitinha for about £16m. Blimey.
Best team we've played this season, and probably the best side I've seen us play since we came back up. Longer term, I'd much rather see us build a side the way they've done it in the last year or two (buying younger talented players who aren't yet at the top, top leve), rather than spending fortunes on the starts who are already at the top. Though I suspect that's the only option open to us anyway.
Post by: Toronto Villa on April 10, 2025, 04:48:11 PM
Chelsea parent company 22 Holdco Ltd, which owns both Chelsea and Strasbourg, lost £473 million in 23/24 taking losses to almost £1.1 billion in the first two trading years. The company borrowed £967 million and repaid loans of £317 million in the year
Nothing to see here.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 10, 2025, 05:39:45 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on April 10, 2025, 06:05:29 PM
Tbf, that Doue and the Georgian guy looks worth the price.
I'm sure they said in commentary that they recently bought those pair for a combined fee of about €120m in the last two transfer windows.
Post by: Dave on April 10, 2025, 06:14:38 PM
We (and most of the rest of the league) were linked with Doué before he went to PSG.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on April 10, 2025, 06:41:07 PM
And while they spend (and have previously spent) stupid money on players, the money they've spent on the current squad isn't *that* crazy.
Vitinha and Fabian Ruiz combined cost them about the same as we paid for Onana. Nuno Mendes cost the same as Maatsen. Yeah, they spent £200m on their four main attackers, but that's not really any different to what Bayern / Man City / Chelsea / Liverpool etc have spent on theirs.
Very true. The number of top quality players they've picked up for €40m or less is most impressive. I wouldn't say no to a cheeky €40m summer bid for Gonçalo Ramos who can't be too happy sitting on the bench. For me he's the perfect Watkins upgrade we need. Does everything Watkins does but is younger and technically more advanced.
Post by: Somniloquism on April 10, 2025, 07:21:59 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on April 10, 2025, 07:26:36 PM
Quote
"I was sat here before you were born!"
Michael Carney's homemade placard aimed at Manchester United's hierarchy during Sunday's derby was blunt, impactful and certainly eye-catching.
"74 years of loyal support - for what?" was written on the other side.
Carney, 81, held his sign towards the Old Trafford directors' box midway through the second-half of Sunday's 0-0 draw with Manchester City.
At the end of the match, hundreds of United supporters made their feelings known about next season's ticket price rises, the cutting of concessions and the amount of money paid to service United's £1bn debt, with a wider 'sit-in' protest arranged by the 1958 fan group.
For Carney and those who sit around him in the lower section of the Sir Bobby Charlton stand, the issue is more personal.
At the bottom of their season ticket renewal letter this year, there was a note from the club.
"We have identified a small number of general admission tickets directly adjacent to the home and away dugouts that will be converted to hospitality seats this summer.
"This reflects the high value of this unique location and will help to raise hospitality revenue to keep general admission Season Ticket prices lower. Your current seat is included within this block, and we will therefore need to find you an alternative seat for next season."
Carney has been sitting in the same seat since 1980. Before that, he was in what used to be known as the 'United Road', which is now the Sir Alex Ferguson stand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5yl0lp0k9go
Post by: Somniloquism on April 10, 2025, 07:35:41 PM
Post by: VillaTim on April 10, 2025, 08:17:55 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on April 10, 2025, 08:36:42 PM
The Witton Upper concourse limitations is probably the only thing holding our seats back from being converted to corporate .
yes it is a fab view up there , but you would need seat service ( actually let’s not give them ideas) 😳
Post by: VillaTim on April 10, 2025, 08:45:29 PM
Heck is more than likely on it anyway . I'm just waiting for the dear John letter this summerThe Witton Upper concourse limitations is probably the only thing holding our seats back from being converted to corporate .
yes it is a fab view up there , but you would need seat service ( actually let’s not give them ideas) 😳
Post by: astonvilla82 on April 10, 2025, 08:51:06 PM
I wonder how long before we're doing similar to those in the lower Trinity.Think the season tickets are only going up a few poundsQuote"I was sat here before you were born!"
Michael Carney's homemade placard aimed at Manchester United's hierarchy during Sunday's derby was blunt, impactful and certainly eye-catching.
"74 years of loyal support - for what?" was written on the other side.
Carney, 81, held his sign towards the Old Trafford directors' box midway through the second-half of Sunday's 0-0 draw with Manchester City.
At the end of the match, hundreds of United supporters made their feelings known about next season's ticket price rises, the cutting of concessions and the amount of money paid to service United's £1bn debt, with a wider 'sit-in' protest arranged by the 1958 fan group.
For Carney and those who sit around him in the lower section of the Sir Bobby Charlton stand, the issue is more personal.
At the bottom of their season ticket renewal letter this year, there was a note from the club.
"We have identified a small number of general admission tickets directly adjacent to the home and away dugouts that will be converted to hospitality seats this summer.
"This reflects the high value of this unique location and will help to raise hospitality revenue to keep general admission Season Ticket prices lower. Your current seat is included within this block, and we will therefore need to find you an alternative seat for next season."
Carney has been sitting in the same seat since 1980. Before that, he was in what used to be known as the 'United Road', which is now the Sir Alex Ferguson stand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5yl0lp0k9go
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 11, 2025, 05:14:53 AM
Top wage bills 23/24:
1. PSG - £553m
2. Manchester City - £465m
3. Real Madrid - £424m
4. Barcelona - £400m
5. Liverpool - £377m
6. Bayern Munich - £361m
7. Manchester United - £360m
8. Chelsea - £332m
9. Arsenal - £320m
10. Aston Villa - £245m
*Source: UEFA Club Licensing Benchmarking Report
Post by: Rigadon on April 11, 2025, 05:44:28 AM
Post by: Bosco81 on April 11, 2025, 06:39:39 AM
Did anyone post this? I thought it relevant:I would imagine a good chunk of ours is in bonuses for getting to the Champions League
Top wage bills 23/24:
1. PSG - £553m
2. Manchester City - £465m
3. Real Madrid - £424m
4. Barcelona - £400m
5. Liverpool - £377m
6. Bayern Munich - £361m
7. Manchester United - £360m
8. Chelsea - £332m
9. Arsenal - £320m
10. Aston Villa - £245m
*Source: UEFA Club Licensing Benchmarking Report
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 11, 2025, 07:50:24 AM
Post by: Nev on April 11, 2025, 08:08:07 AM
I wonder how long before we're doing similar to those in the lower Trinity.Think the season tickets are only going up a few poundsQuote"I was sat here before you were born!"
Michael Carney's homemade placard aimed at Manchester United's hierarchy during Sunday's derby was blunt, impactful and certainly eye-catching.
"74 years of loyal support - for what?" was written on the other side.
Carney, 81, held his sign towards the Old Trafford directors' box midway through the second-half of Sunday's 0-0 draw with Manchester City.
At the end of the match, hundreds of United supporters made their feelings known about next season's ticket price rises, the cutting of concessions and the amount of money paid to service United's £1bn debt, with a wider 'sit-in' protest arranged by the 1958 fan group.
For Carney and those who sit around him in the lower section of the Sir Bobby Charlton stand, the issue is more personal.
At the bottom of their season ticket renewal letter this year, there was a note from the club.
"We have identified a small number of general admission tickets directly adjacent to the home and away dugouts that will be converted to hospitality seats this summer.
"This reflects the high value of this unique location and will help to raise hospitality revenue to keep general admission Season Ticket prices lower. Your current seat is included within this block, and we will therefore need to find you an alternative seat for next season."
Carney has been sitting in the same seat since 1980. Before that, he was in what used to be known as the 'United Road', which is now the Sir Alex Ferguson stand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5yl0lp0k9go
It's not new really. My mate and his Dad had prime seats in the Trinity at the front overlooking the halfway line for around 15 years. They were moved for this sort of thing when it was the old stand so that dates back to Ellis days.
Post by: ChicagoLion on April 11, 2025, 08:15:58 AM
Catering and toilet facilities seat service would be interesting.The Witton Upper concourse limitations is probably the only thing holding our seats back from being converted to corporate .
yes it is a fab view up there , but you would need seat service ( actually let’s not give them ideas) 😳
Post by: Somniloquism on April 11, 2025, 09:15:32 AM
^^ I looked it up when some dopy twat at work said that PSG had built their squad on the cheap.
Relative cheap in that they were not paying 100Million in transfers, but getting 2 for that price. But that PSG figure is from last year so would still be paying Mbappe. I did read that when they got Don Rummy on a free, his wages were reported as 10mill a year AFTER tax.
Post by: VillaTim on April 11, 2025, 09:16:49 AM
Padded Commode seats ?Catering and toilet facilities seat service would be interesting.The Witton Upper concourse limitations is probably the only thing holding our seats back from being converted to corporate .
yes it is a fab view up there , but you would need seat service ( actually let’s not give them ideas) 😳
Post by: tomd2103 on April 11, 2025, 02:22:59 PM
Did anyone post this? I thought it relevant:
Top wage bills 23/24:
1. PSG - £553m
2. Manchester City - £465m
3. Real Madrid - £424m
4. Barcelona - £400m
5. Liverpool - £377m
6. Bayern Munich - £361m
7. Manchester United - £360m
8. Chelsea - £332m
9. Arsenal - £320m
10. Aston Villa - £245m
*Source: UEFA Club Licensing Benchmarking Report
The thought did cross my mind earlier in the week just where we would be under Unai Emery if our wage bill was up at the levels of Liverpool and Manchester United.
It's also quite a big jump from 9th to 10th.
Post by: aj2k77 on April 11, 2025, 06:37:49 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on April 11, 2025, 06:39:58 PM
Post by: Tuscans on April 11, 2025, 11:41:25 PM
@MattHughesMedia
Post by: cdbearsfan on April 11, 2025, 11:43:04 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 12, 2025, 01:01:22 AM
Post by: Dave on April 12, 2025, 05:35:10 AM
Post by: OCD on April 12, 2025, 06:57:25 AM
Post by: Chap on April 12, 2025, 08:58:09 AM
The starting point in negotiations is meant to have been £10m so yes, only a fine, but we're not a small one.Can it be used in the PSR/FFP calculations??
Post by: Steve67 on April 12, 2025, 09:06:47 AM
Post by: aj2k77 on April 12, 2025, 10:09:24 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on April 12, 2025, 10:58:50 AM
Post by: eamonn on April 12, 2025, 11:12:51 AM
Post by: VillaTim on April 12, 2025, 11:32:35 AM
Post by: dekko on April 12, 2025, 01:14:07 PM
So it would be bad for ffp as it's reducing our income.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on April 12, 2025, 03:15:13 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 12, 2025, 05:35:19 PM
Like I said, only a fine.
I take it back. Roma got a fine and a 1 year ban.
Post by: Tuscans on April 13, 2025, 10:59:25 AM
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more
Stefan Borson
Apr 13, 2025
They were conspicuous by their absence.
First, Aston Villa did not mention the UEFA financial fair play regime at all in their recent accounts. Chelsea also dropped their historic stance that “it had complied with these regulations since their inception in 2012 and expects to do so for the foreseeable future.”
The reason is simple. Both clubs are substantially in breach of at least one of the elements of the current UEFA FFP sustainability regime – football earnings. Villa have certainly also breached the cost control ratio whereas compliance for Chelsea will depend on how much (if any) of their spectacular £152m player trading profit is adjusted down. That same issue could also materially increase the scale of any miss of both elements of the UEFA rules by either club.
Chelsea and Villa’s player trading profit may be materially adjusted by UEFA
It is possible that the key player trading profit in both Aston Villa’s and Chelsea’s accounts will be materially reduced due to UEFA’s stringent approach in Annex G.3.5.
Newcastle took the trouble to quantify and reconcile the impact of the UEFA rules in their accounts. Leicester did similar but the adjustment was less than £500k and related purely to amortisation.
Source: Newcastle United accounts
Newcastle reported player trading profit of £70m but were required to adjust the number by more than £30m. This is likely because the sale of Elliot Anderson, was effectively deemed to be a player exchange due to the surprising purchase by Newcastle of Odysseas Vlachodimos and the sale of Allan Saint-Maximin for $25m was a related party transaction (as per Newcastle’s accounts). Both sales would be reduced to their respective book value under UEFA rules ie close to zero for a youth player. It appears, therefore, that the vast majority of what was left relates to Yankuba Minteh’s £33m move to Brighton.
UEFA adjustments on player exchanges are also likely to apply to Chelsea and Villa in respect of the transfers of Ian Maatsen and Omari Kellyman and, in the current financial year for Chelsea, Conor Gallagher. Villa may well have a raft of adjusted profits for 23/24 as much of their reported £65m player trading profit could be subject to adjustment due to the player exchange rules.
What Chelsea and Villa did say
Chelsea obliquely stated “The Club aims to balance success on the field together with the financial imperatives of complying with UEFA and Premier League financial regulations” - a tacit admission that they are happy to breach if, on balance, it is advantageous for success on the pitch.
Chelsea indirectly acknowledged non-compliance with UEFA FFP with a convoluted statement which needs a translation. So, here is the statement and my translation:
Translation: We [Chelsea] have been negotiating a settlement with UEFA since before 30 June 2024 arguing mitigating factors to reduce the settlement or fine relating to a substantial breach of UEFA FFP.
This has been widely confirmed since the release of the accounts including in The Times.
At least Villa confirmed that they expected to be compliant with 2024/25 Premier League rules.
But the question for Villa is how they expect to comply? Right now, they are obviously some way short of the £105m cap even after all permitted adjustments. Indeed, Villa are one of the few clubs (Ipswich are still the kings of such disclosure) that detail the costs of a number of the permissible PSR adjustments like community development and women’s football.
Is it a repeat of 2024 - a couple of swaps and a big sale of a player they would prefer not to lose? The issue using swaps is that detailed above - would UEFA accept the profits even if the Premier League does.
Or are they planning to sell the Women’s team as reported in The Times following Chelsea’s sale. (NB: it is worth noting at this point, that at a Chelsea style revenue multiplier, Villa’s women’s team could be valued at £100m. It is a company that is so small that it doesn’t need to prepare audited accounts (and so doesn’t) and that Villa have invested just over £10m in the last 2 years. What a fantastic ROI that would be. On paper.)
Chelsea’s huge operating losses appear even worse to UEFA
Over the years, observers have learnt that Premier League PSR calculations are not what they seem. Clubs have regularly negotiated to exclude or get credit for various unusual matters in their accounts. We know, for example, of Covid allowances (Manchester United), hotel sales (Chelsea), debt write offs as part of acquisitions (Bournemouth) and certain interest payments (Everton). There are many other examples we have never publicly heard about.
In some ways, UEFA’s approach is simpler as they largely dismiss clubs’ “ingenious” schemes on multi-club cost manoeuvres, amortisation tricks, non-football asset sales, player swaps, related party sales and the up front recognition of multi-year commercial/media deals.
In some cases, it means that UEFA is working to a radically different set of numbers to the Premier League and to Companies House.
This is illustrated each year by the UEFA Landscape Report which effectively leaks UEFA’s view of the major clubs in respect of revenue, EBITDA, wages and some operating cost lines. In 2023, one version even disclosed the break down between first team costs and the overall wage bills. That version disappeared from circulation but not before keen watchers had noted its contents.
Tucked away in the 2024 report was UEFA’s view of Chelsea’s revenue and EBITDA. Revenue for 23/24 was around £17m lower than Chelsea reported, at £447m, and EBITDA reduced by a huge £42m. UEFA’s view of last year’s EBITDA was also disclosed as a loss of £26m when Chelsea had reported it to be a profit of £23m. In other words, a negative swing of almost £50m. There are no adjustments disclosed for Villa vs their published accounts.
The question is no longer if, but by how much
In short, both Chelsea and Villa have failed UEFA FFP. But by how much?
There are three parts of the UEFA FFP regime for 24/25 season. The regulations have three distinct pillars: the no overdue payables rule, the football earnings rule, and the squad cost rule. The three parts, pillars and tests are:
1: Solvency and no overdue payables
All monies owed to football clubs, employees, social/tax authorities, and UEFA due to be settled by 30 June, 30 September and 31 December during the licence season must be settled by a club by 15 July, 15 October, and 15 January respectively. In other words pay any bills by, at the most, 15 days after the due date. Premier League teams are unlikely to fall foul of this.
2: Stability and the football earnings rule
The stability requirements are an evolution of the existing break-even requirements - a scheme similar to PSR.
The acceptable adjusted loss permitted has increased from €30 million over three years to €60 million over three years. This acceptable deviation can be further increased above €60 million by up to €10 million for each reporting period in the monitoring period for clubs showing good financial health. 24/25 is the first tested year, so has a cap of a maximum of €80 million for 23/24 and 24/25. This test uses the audited financial numbers adjusted for UEFA’s rules (ie a version of those numbers that English clubs publish to Companies House).
3: Cost control and the squad cost rule
The cost control rule restricts spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenues. The gradual implementation means 80% in 2024/2025 (ie for the calendar year to 31 December 2024), and 70% in 2025/2026 (ie for the calendar year to 31 December 2025).
Unusually, this is tested on a calendar year so includes the summer transfer window meaning that precise evaluation of a club’s squad cost position is impossible but we can ascertain a direction of travel.
What happens to clubs who fail to comply with UEFA FFP?
Villa were fined €60,000 last year for the late submission of its results and Chelsea recently paid a €10m fine to UEFA in respect of the “financial irregularities” described in their accounts. But neither of these were comparable to this season’s breaches.
Breaches of the regulations are sanctioned by the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) according to a catalogue of sanctions listed in the CFCB procedural rules. Historically, UEFA fines and sanctions were considered serious. For repeat offenders, including admitted breaches, these could reach tens of millions of euros even in settlement. Various teams were excluded from competition. In more recent times, UEFA appear to be taking a far more lenient approach laid bare most recently in the Barcelona case.
In that case, UEFA even ended up arguing at CAS that its own CFCB imposed sanction was “very lenient” given the €267m breach. This was UEFA’s own submission as recounted by CAS:
CAS agreed but was not empowered with revisiting the original penalty of just €500k stating that it considered the sanction to be “relatively mild” given the intentional and severe breach. Incredibly, Barcelona were actually originally offered a settlement of €80k which is about the same as some clubs have been fined for a UEFA critical fan banner.
Over the years, numerous clubs have entered into settlements with UEFA - some admitting breaches, others, like the 2014 MCFC and PSG agreements, expressly refusing to do so. A number of Europe’s major clubs like the Milan clubs, Roma, Juventus and PSG have failed multiple times.
For Chelsea and Villa, the football earnings requirements include the possibility of settlement agreements.
On the other hand, the squad cost rule sanctions will be progressive (and relatively minor) based on the scale of the breach and number of breaches committed over a period of four years.
You would assume that a settlement agreement for a breach of the football earnings rule would also incorporate a sanction for any squad cost breach.
The football earnings breaches are big but it’s been worth it
Villa and Chelsea will each be tens of millions of euros over the football earnings cap. Chelsea may be more than €100m over the cap. But Villa are in the Champions League Quarter Final, they will make around €100m from this season’s competition and are now looking well placed for a second consecutive qualification. Chelsea are also well placed to return to the Champions League next season and are likely to win the Europa Conference.
In that context, these knowing breaches will be a happy cost of doing business.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on April 13, 2025, 03:37:03 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 13, 2025, 03:43:55 PM
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on April 13, 2025, 03:45:04 PM
Post by: jon collett on April 13, 2025, 04:00:47 PM
Can someone sum that up for an incredibly lazy bastard?
It’s basically like a substandard GCSE history essay. He says on the one hand on the other ad nauseum.
He knows some facts but not enough to substantiate a case and is reduced to guesswork.
Post by: AV82EC on April 13, 2025, 04:05:40 PM
Can someone sum that up for an incredibly lazy bastard?
It’s basically like a substandard GCSE history essay. He says on the one hand on the other ad nauseum.
He knows some facts but not enough to substantiate a case and is reduced to guesswork.
It seems he’s got quite a bit of info on Chelsea and kind of thrown us in to give a bit more colour. If the colour was beige.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on April 13, 2025, 04:08:43 PM
Can someone sum that up for an incredibly lazy bastard?
It’s basically like a substandard GCSE history essay. He says on the one hand on the other ad nauseum.
He knows some facts but not enough to substantiate a case and is reduced to guesswork.
It seems he’s got quite a bit of info on Chelsea and kind of thrown us in to give a bit more colour. If the colour was beige.
Ah, ok. Thanks, both.
Post by: OCD on April 14, 2025, 10:58:31 AM
Aston Villa and Chelsea have both failed to comply with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, particularly breaching the football earnings requirement, and potentially the squad cost rule. Despite previous assurances, neither club now claims full compliance. Their financial strategies—including heavy use of player swaps and inflated transfer profits—are likely to face UEFA scrutiny and adjustments that reduce reported profits. Unlike Newcastle, who disclosed FFP impacts transparently, Villa and Chelsea appear to be pursuing on-field success at the cost of regulatory breaches. While fines and sanctions are possible, UEFA has recently taken a more lenient approach. Ultimately, both clubs may consider the financial penalties a worthwhile trade-off for lucrative European competition results and future qualification prospects.
Post by: SaddVillan on April 25, 2025, 10:18:21 AM
EXPLORING ASTON VILLA’S FINANCES AND THE OWNER-BENEFACTOR MODEL
WHAT DO VILLA’S ’s RECENT FINANCIALS LOOK LIKE – AND WHAT’S ’s THEIR PSR POSITION?
The club’s 2023-24 financials, recently released, told the tale of a whopping loss. This time, £85.9m was the pre-tax deficit, though that marked a 29 per cent improvement on 2022-23’s club record £120.3m loss. A caveat to last season’s loss was the fact it covered a 13-month accounting period, meaning an extra month of costs in June, a time when revenues are slim. That provides only partial mitigation; Villa’s reasoning for shifting their year-end date was ostensibly to ensure they could book sufficient player profits to not fall foul of profit and sustainability rules (PSR).
In the six years since Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens bought the club at the beginning of the 2018-19 season, Villa have booked combined pre-tax losses of £411.4m. In that time, only Everton (£553.3m) have lost more among English clubs.
ASTON VILLA HAVE BEEN HEAVILY LOSS-MAKING ACROSS THE LAST DECADE
Across the past decade, Villa have lost £570.5m, with £206.2m of that coming in the past two years alone. At the operating level, before any player sales, Villa have lost £284.8m in the last two seasons, or £375,000 per day. Only Chelsea (£431.3m) have lost more on a day-to-day basis in that time. Villa, as we’ll see, have only recently started to sell players for big fees; in the case of last season, doing so was a necessity to avoid a domestic PSR charge.
Player profits of £64.7m were booked into 2023-24, the majority arriving in a flurry of activity at the end of June 2024. Villa partook in multiple swap-like transfers last summer, a ploy undertaken by several Premier League clubs to boost bottom lines. In effect, deals that might otherwise have constituted player-swap-plus-cash deals were instead treated as entirely separate transactions, with the benefit of clubs being able to record higher player sale profits.
Villa engaged with three other clubs to that end. Tim Iroegbunam was sold for a reported £9m from Everton, with Lewis Dobbin passing the other way for £10m. Ian Maatsen arrived from Chelsea for £37.5m, as Omari Kellyman went to west London for £19m. Most crucially to Villa’s 2023-24 financials, midfielder Douglas Luiz departed for Italy and Juventus for €50m; Samuel Iling-Junior and Enzo Barrenechea left Turin for Birmingham.
The Luiz sale was integral, generating an estimated £40m profit. Without that, Villa would have breached PSR last season. Even with it, compliance appears to have been tight.
Unlike just about every other club bar Ipswich Town, Villa actually disclose costs deductible from PSR calculations, being: expenditure on youth development, community development and the club’s women’s team. Across the 2022-24 PSR cycle, the club spent £48.1m on their academy, £14.6m on community costs and £13.3m on the women’s team. On top of that, £13.7m was charged to depreciation and non-player amortisation, another deductible.
Villa’s pre-tax loss for the 2022-24 PSR cycle was £205.8m, leaving them needing £100.8m in deductions to meet the £105m allowable loss limit. Combined, the above deductions total £89.8m — or £11.0m shy of the required amount.
As to how Villa didn’t therefore breach PSR in the last cycle, the answer lies in their 13-month accounting period. Whatever their actual accounting periods, clubs are assessed on PSR over 36 months, so where the three accounting periods total more or less than that, clubs need to adjust their figures. In Villa’s case, it’s not as simple as taking 12/13ths of a given year’s figures because football clubs’ income and costs don’t accrue evenly over the course of an accounting period. How Villa adjusted their calculation is unknown, but it was this pro-rating that served to ensure they fell on the right side of the £105m line.
In terms of the current season, such hefty losses in the past two campaigns pose a problem for Villa again. Their 2021-22 small pre-tax profit falls off their PSR calculation in 2024-25 so, assuming deductible costs remain at the same level as last season, and further assuming they only just avoided a breach last year, The Athletic estimates Villa will be able to lose only £15m pre-tax and remain compliant with Premier League PSR.
That’s a huge drop on last season’s £85.9m loss, even with the return to a 12-month accounting period. Champions League revenue will help, but it’s clear to see why Villa have sanctioned the significant sales of Moussa Diaby and Jhon Duran this term. Whether it will be enough or more sales are needed before 30 June is unclear.
Dependent on how much the wage bill has increased this term, Villa might already have done just about enough, but The Athletic’s calculations (based, necessarily, on a number of assumptions) put their compliance in 2024-25 on a knife-edge. In that sense, a further player sale before the end of June would be of little surprise.
While domestic trouble has so far been avoided, the same can’t be said abroad. UEFA, unlike the Premier League, have put in place rules that aim to nullify the benefits of clubs engaging in those swap-esque deals mentioned earlier. UEFA requires sales proceeds on such deals to be measured at the value of the player in the selling club’s books, adjusted for any net cash paid as part of the deal.
In other words, Villa likely had to remove the £28m of profit they booked selling Iroegbunam and Kellyman, while the profit on the Luiz deal was reduced from £40m to, by our estimate, little over half that. Those adjustments push our estimate of Villa’s PSR loss across the past two seasons beyond the £150m mark — or well over the €80m limit UEFA allowed for clubs in the two-year monitoring period to the end of last season. That limit increases to €90m over three years for 2024-25, though, and with those profit reductions still in play, it’s unclear where Villa will land in terms of complying with UEFA loss limits.
IMPROVED TURNOVER – WITH MORE TO COME
Villa’s recent seasons have seen them display a paradox that is increasingly common at English clubs, whereby record revenues manage to result in record losses. That was the case for them in 2022-23, while last season, both Liverpool and Bournemouth did it. The correlation isn’t perfect, but in a general sense, increased incomes are compelling clubs to spend even more.
As we’ve seen, Villa’s loss did fall last season, though only via the last-minute Luiz sale. Meanwhile, record revenues were booked for the second year running, with club income hitting £275.7m; it will be three in a row in 2024-25 following their lengthy Champions League run.
Villa’s turnover growth last season was impressive, not least because it spanned all three main revenue streams. Broadcast income was up as a result of improved on-field performances, their fourth-placed finish generating £162.4m in Premier League prize money, up £14.1m on a season earlier. A run to the semi-final of the Europa Conference League, UEFA’s poorest relation, was far less lucrative, though did earn them £13.7m, their first income from European competition in 13 years.
VILLA SHOWED STRONG GROWTH IN ALL THREE REVENUE STREAMS LAST SEASON
Villa’s broadcast income was the league’s fifth highest last season, up four spots in a year. There was a similar relative improvement in gate receipts, where a strong 49 per cent increase saw them pass three other clubs compared to 2022-23.
Yet Villa’s £28m in matchday income was still bettered by eight other Premier League teams. Champions League football will have driven the figure higher again this season, but there’s a reason the owners are pushing to increase Villa Park’s capacity from its current level of 42,000 to more than 50,000. While catching the ‘Big Six’ any time soon might be deemed fanciful – Villa’s gate receipts currently trail West Ham United and Newcastle United by £16.6m and £22.1m respectively – these are gaps the club are doubtless keen to reduce.
Matchday income was the revenue stream with the greatest proportional uplift, but growth has been particularly impressive in commercial areas. Villa’s commercial income has grown £24.2m, or 62 per cent, in just two years, and at £63.3m overall trails only the ‘Big Six’ and Newcastle, who have enjoyed their own surge in sponsorships since their Saudi-led takeover in late 2021.
This season, Villa have new deals that should push income up further. Betano have replaced BK8 as front-of-shirt sponsor, with their reported £20m annual deal more than double what BK8 paid last season. Trade Nation signed back on as the club’s sleeve sponsor, doubling their commitment to £4m per season. Adidas will also take over as Villa’s kit supplier in a lucrative new deal that should increase on the £4m Castore paid.
Of course, the biggest driver of further revenue growth this season is the Champions League. Villa are estimated to have earned more than £70m from their exploits, ensuring they, like Newcastle last season, will top £300m in income for the first time. Outside of the ‘Big Six’, they are the only two English clubs to have managed the feat.
A FAST-GROWING WAGE BILL, REFLECTING CHAMPIONS LEAGUE CONTENTION
While revenue has grown by 50 per cent in the past three seasons, it has been significantly outpaced by wages. Villa’s £252m wage bill last season was up 83 per cent on 2020-21, and even if we pro-rata it to adjust for the extended accounting period, growth would still be 68 per cent.
On a pure numbers basis, only Arsenal’s wage growth surpassed Villa’s in 2023-24. Staff costs at Villa Park jumped £57.8m (£38.5m prorated), reflecting both squad investment and the success of qualifying for the Champions League — bonuses are paid when qualification is achieved, so fall into the season before the actual competition is played.
Even with those bonuses and the extended accounting period, Villa’s wage bill was only the sixth highest in the Premier League, so finishing fourth under Unai Emery represented an over-achievement in that sense. Emery has firmly bucked the trend of recent Villa managers in the top tier, over-performing the club’s wage bill in each of his seasons in charge so far (they finished seventh with the eighth-highest wages in 2022-23).
Wage bills are generally held up as the best financial indicator of where a club will place in a league season and, before Emery’s arrival, Villa had finished lower than their wage bill ranking in nine consecutive Premier League seasons. Such failings were most pronounced in their 2015-16 relegation year, when they finished bottom of the table with the seventh-best-paid squad in the division.
While Emery has plainly done a good job, it’s not like Villa haven’t spent heavily on wages either. In jumping to sixth in the wage bill ranks, they’ve dislodged Spurs, and while that might say something about the north London outfit's parsimony, the extent of Villa’s ambition is clear. With Champions League football and the big money signings of Amadou Onana and Donyell Malen, not to mention the January loan arrivals of Marcus Rashford, Marco Asensio and Axel Disasi, expect another record wage bill in 2024-25.
Villa’s wages as a percentage of turnover sat at 91 per cent last season, a league high. That was impacted by the extended accounting period, but even if we prorate wages down, we’re still left with wages-to-turnover of 84 per cent. Only three clubs — Nottingham Forest, Fulham and Bournemouth — spent a higher proportion of their income on staff costs in 2023-24.
VILLA'S WAGES TO REVENUE RATIO REMAINS ONE OF THE PREMIER LEAGUE’S HIGHEST
A fall to 84 per cent marks a five per cent reduction for Villa on a year earlier, though it’s still notably up on the two seasons before then. Villa’s wages have consistently sat beyond the 70 per cent mark UEFA has long advised clubs to aim for, and while that’s not unique among Premier League clubs, it does point to why profitability has been hard to come by. Villa’s wages-to-revenue ratio has only slightly dipped from the 86 per cent of their 2015-16 relegation season.
Is that a concern? From a sustainability point of view, not really, because that isn’t a (current) aim for the club. Villa are being run with growth in mind and have owners willing to pick up the tab. However, the high relative wage bill is behind the current PSR problems the club are having on the European stage, and was a key driver in the need for those late-June sales last year. As mentioned, Villa will enjoy record revenues on the back of the Champions League run in 2024-25; it will be interesting to see whether it outpaced wage growth this year.
ARE VILLA NOW EFFECTIVE SELLERS?
With Villa and Newcastle firmly viewing one another as rivals seeking to break into English football’s elite, it’s interesting they’ve employed slightly contrasting approaches. Both have spent heavily on players, though the mix of that spending has been quite different: Villa’s wage bill has surged beyond Newcastle’s, but the latter have spent more on transfer fees.
To the end of June 2024, Newcastle’s squad cost was more than £100m higher than Villa’s, when before the former’s October 2021 takeover, it had been £38.3m less. Villa have made up some ground this season, particularly because Newcastle have spent minimally in 2024-25, but the difference between the two is noteworthy.
VILLA'S SQUAD WAS THE EIGHTH MOST EXPENSIVE IN ENGLAND - THOUGH, THERE WERE BIG GAPS ABOVE AND BELOW THEM
Through acquiring some key squad members for low fees — Youri Tielemans and Morgan Rogers, for example, will have cost just £16m combined even if all clauses possible on the latter become payable — Villa have been able to use more funds on wages and, in turn, build an impressive squad.
Not that Villa’s squad has come cheap at more than half a billion pounds. Over the past five seasons, Villa spent £652m on new players (the sixth highest in England in that time) while recouping £250.4m on sales (eighth highest), for a net spend of £401.6m. Only five English clubs spent more on a net basis and Villa’s net transfer spend in that time was larger than both Manchester City’s and Liverpool’s.
Villa have booked £184.6m in profit on player sales in the past three seasons alone, a figure only three English clubs — Chelsea, Manchester City and Brighton — topped in that time. This season, they made £64.9m in the summer window and January income was a further £70m-plus.
Yet there are caveats to the idea of Villa as a club employing the sort of high-volume player trading models seen at the likes of Chelsea and City. £100m of that quarter-billion in sales between 2020 and 2024 came via City’s purchase of Jack Grealish, while a further £68m stemmed from those not-quite-player-swap deals of last summer.
Meanwhile, Villa have benefited significantly from the arrival of Saudi Arabian clubs on the world transfer stage. The vast majority of this season’s income came from selling Diaby and Duran to Al Nassr, which, while perfectly valid sales, might not be classed as a sustainable source of income.
THE OWNER-BENEFACTOR MODEL, WRIT LARGE
Villa have long been the beneficiaries of significant owner funding. Indeed, Tony Xia’s investment was exactly what led to the club falling into trouble under his watch; when the owner could no longer get his money in, the club couldn’t meet its liabilities of its own accord.
Since Sawiris and Edens took over, to the end of last season, Villa had received £601.3m in cash from their owners, pretty much all of it as shares. If that sounds like a lot, that’s because it is.
ONLY CHELSEA HAVE RECEIVED MORE OWNER FUNDING THAN Aston VILLA MANAGER SINCE NSWES ARRIVED IN 2018
A look at Villa’s cash flow clearly illustrates the owner-benefactor model employed at Villa Park. Across the past decade, Villa have lost £198.2m in cash from operations, reflecting those continued losses we covered earlier. What’s more, investing activities — principally, buying and selling players — have drained a further £506.8m from club coffers. £430.9m of that went on net transfer payments.
Those cash losses were underwritten by more than £700m in equity injections in the past decade and while the owner-benefactor model is hardly a rarity in football, and English football in particular, it’s been employed to an extreme level at Villa.
While Sawiris and Edens have overseen significant investment in their time at Villa Park, more recent capital injections have come from elsewhere. Atairos, an American investment company, bought into V Sports, Villa’s ultimate controlling party, in December 2023. The £94.0m injected into Villa in August and October of last year came via Atairos issuing new shares in V Sports. Correspondingly, the group’s beneficial stake in the club grew by a shade under 10 per cent, to 31.08 per cent. Sawiris and Edens each own 34.46 per cent. Whether that trend will continue is unknown, but Villa aren’t short of wealthy backers with appetites to invest.
While the bulk of expenditure has gone on improving matters on the field, Villa have spent off it, too. Under Sawiris and Edens, £69.4m has gone on improving infrastructure, the eighth-highest in England in that time. The four biggest spenders in that period have all either built new stadiums (Tottenham and Everton) or undertaken significant upgrades to their existing homes (Fulham and Liverpool), so Villa’s investment here looks all the more impressive in lieu of any such big projects.
Not that they’ll want the latter to persist. Plans to redevelop the North Stand at Villa Park were shelved in 2023, but in December 2024, the club announced a regeneration project expected to cost more than £100m. The plan includes a 3,500-seater venue to enable entertainment events to take place all year, no matter the weather, alongside a plaza that connects Villa Park to the club shop and a general widening of space around the stadium. The plans are ambitious and linked to Villa Park’s role as a Euro 2028 host venue, though they remain stuck in the development stage.
WHAT'S NEXT?
It is easily forgotten just how close to the brink Aston Villa were in 2018. When Sawiris and Edens walked through the door, they came to a club whose owner, Xia, appeared no longer able to support it. Unable to move funds out of his native China, hefty spending under Xia in a thus far failed attempt at promotion threatened to derail the club. Tax bills were missed, winding-up orders served. Administration, hushed though the tones might have been, wasn’t an unrealistic possibility.
That fate was swerved and fortunes have mostly trended upward since. Sawiris and Edens have invested big sums and been rewarded with big improvements. Promotion was achieved swiftly and while the trend hasn’t been uniformly upwards, Villa are well removed from the lows of less than a decade ago.
This season’s Champions League run was thrilling and a welcome boost to club coffers. It also felt needed. Aston Villa have thrown a lot of money at things in recent years and losses have climbed significantly in the past two seasons, so increased revenues are not just welcome but required if they are to comply with football’s financial rules. Or, at the very least, not wildly overshoot them. Even with more than £70m in UEFA income this season, the club has still undertaken big player sales.
It is becoming a running refrain across most top-half Premier League clubs, but of paramount importance for Villa is returning to the Champions League next season. Tuesday evening’s loss at Manchester City will trouble Emery in that respect. Villa’s run to the last eight means another go at things next season will bring better takings from the competition’s ‘value pillar’, which rewards clubs for historic performance in Europe.
The direction of travel has been clear over much of the past six years, but while there’s no sign of backing from the owners waning, PSR regimes are starting to bite. Missing out on the top five – and therefore on Champions League football – would be a big blow.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on April 25, 2025, 10:47:49 AM
Can someone sum that up for an incredibly lazy bastard?
Chelseas are *****.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on April 26, 2025, 04:00:55 AM
Can someone sum that up for an incredibly lazy bastard?
Chelseas are *****.
🤔 I'm still not sure if you read the article or are just dropping everyday life truth bombs.
Post by: LeonW on April 27, 2025, 01:42:17 AM
Post by: aev on April 28, 2025, 12:38:35 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 28, 2025, 12:44:07 PM
We are considering doing a Chelsea, and selling a stake in the women's team...more relevant for here I guess.
This was in The Times a while ago. Is there a fresh story? (Not having a pop, just keen to read).
Edit: I suppose avoiding relegation yesterday might have given the story new impetus.
Post by: aev on April 28, 2025, 12:51:49 PM
There is a bit more below...
By David Hellier and Aaron Kirchfeld
(Bloomberg) -- Premier League football club Aston Villa is
considering the sale of a minority stake in its women’s team,
according to people familiar with the situation.
Aston Villa WFC may sell a stake of 10% to 20% and is
attracting interest from several sports business operators and
investors including backers of teams from the US National
Women’s Soccer League, the people said. The owners may seek a
valuation of up to £60 million ($80.1 million), one of them
said, asking not to be named discussing private information.
No terms have been agreed and it is possible that Aston
Villa, owned by Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris, as well as the
American investment company Atairos, decide not to sell a stake.
Aston Villa WFC currently stands in 10th place in the Women’s
Super League.
A spokesperson from Aston Villa declined to comment.
The valuation of women’s football teams have been
increasing, marked by last year’s $250 million valuation of the
NWSL’s Angel City FC, bought by Willow Bay and husband Bob Iger,
the Disney chief executive officer.
Unlike the US, the majority of women’s teams in the UK are
owned by larger men’s teams. With the growth in popularity in
women’s football, combined with increasing valuations, UK club
owners have been looking at selling stakes to raise cash and
comply with financial regulations.
Chelsea was the first English club to consider selling a
stake in its women’s team, Bloomberg reported last year. After
failing to sell to an external investor, Chelsea decided instead
to sell the team to its own parent company, claiming a £200
million valuation that has enabled the club to stay within
financial fair play rules. The sale has yet to be approved by
the Premier League.
Although interest in women’s football has been growing
significantly in recent years, its revenues are still small.
Aston Villa’s women’s team revenue for 2023/24 is listed as £6.3
million, according to the Deloitte Football Money League.
Aston Villa WFC plays some of its matches at the 41,000
capacity main stadium, Villa Park, including against Manchester
United in March, which was attended by around 5,000 fans.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 28, 2025, 01:03:42 PM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on April 28, 2025, 01:08:42 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on April 28, 2025, 01:36:35 PM
what stops any club just buying Assets ( hotels etc) and then just selling them on at inflated prices to a sister company every few months
Currently, Associated Party Transaction rules (APT). Also, UEFA are a bit stricter on dodgy-looking deals. Apparently they’re not accepting deals like Big Tim & Dobbin/ Maatsen & Kellyman swapping clubs as a boost to our finances.
Post by: Tokyo Sexwhale on April 28, 2025, 01:44:35 PM
There is a bit more below...
By David Hellier and Aaron Kirchfeld
(Bloomberg) -- Premier League football club Aston Villa is
considering the sale of a minority stake in its women’s team,
according to people familiar with the situation.
Aston Villa WFC may sell a stake of 10% to 20% and is
attracting interest from several sports business operators and
investors including backers of teams from the US National
Women’s Soccer League, the people said. The owners may seek a
valuation of up to £60 million ($80.1 million), one of them
said, asking not to be named discussing private information.
No terms have been agreed and it is possible that Aston
Villa, owned by Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris, as well as the
American investment company Atairos, decide not to sell a stake.
Aston Villa WFC currently stands in 10th place in the Women’s
Super League.
A spokesperson from Aston Villa declined to comment.
The valuation of women’s football teams have been
increasing, marked by last year’s $250 million valuation of the
NWSL’s Angel City FC, bought by Willow Bay and husband Bob Iger,
the Disney chief executive officer.
Unlike the US, the majority of women’s teams in the UK are
owned by larger men’s teams. With the growth in popularity in
women’s football, combined with increasing valuations, UK club
owners have been looking at selling stakes to raise cash and
comply with financial regulations.
Chelsea was the first English club to consider selling a
stake in its women’s team, Bloomberg reported last year. After
failing to sell to an external investor, Chelsea decided instead
to sell the team to its own parent company, claiming a £200
million valuation that has enabled the club to stay within
financial fair play rules. The sale has yet to be approved by
the Premier League.
Although interest in women’s football has been growing
significantly in recent years, its revenues are still small.
Aston Villa’s women’s team revenue for 2023/24 is listed as £6.3
million, according to the Deloitte Football Money League.
Aston Villa WFC plays some of its matches at the 41,000
capacity main stadium, Villa Park, including against Manchester
United in March, which was attended by around 5,000 fans.
If any club sells their women's team to another company/person; isn't that just a franchise that has use of a name/IP?
What connection would it then have to the men's club? Why would you support it/give a shit about its results when it has no links other than the name?
Post by: London Villan on April 28, 2025, 01:50:28 PM
Post by: Drummond on April 28, 2025, 02:13:04 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on April 28, 2025, 02:41:49 PM
There is a bit more below...
By David Hellier and Aaron Kirchfeld
(Bloomberg) -- Premier League football club Aston Villa is
considering the sale of a minority stake in its women’s team,
according to people familiar with the situation.
Aston Villa WFC may sell a stake of 10% to 20% and is
attracting interest from several sports business operators and
investors including backers of teams from the US National
Women’s Soccer League, the people said. The owners may seek a
valuation of up to £60 million ($80.1 million), one of them
said, asking not to be named discussing private information.
No terms have been agreed and it is possible that Aston
Villa, owned by Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris, as well as the
American investment company Atairos, decide not to sell a stake.
Aston Villa WFC currently stands in 10th place in the Women’s
Super League.
A spokesperson from Aston Villa declined to comment.
The valuation of women’s football teams have been
increasing, marked by last year’s $250 million valuation of the
NWSL’s Angel City FC, bought by Willow Bay and husband Bob Iger,
the Disney chief executive officer.
Unlike the US, the majority of women’s teams in the UK are
owned by larger men’s teams. With the growth in popularity in
women’s football, combined with increasing valuations, UK club
owners have been looking at selling stakes to raise cash and
comply with financial regulations.
Chelsea was the first English club to consider selling a
stake in its women’s team, Bloomberg reported last year. After
failing to sell to an external investor, Chelsea decided instead
to sell the team to its own parent company, claiming a £200
million valuation that has enabled the club to stay within
financial fair play rules. The sale has yet to be approved by
the Premier League.
Although interest in women’s football has been growing
significantly in recent years, its revenues are still small.
Aston Villa’s women’s team revenue for 2023/24 is listed as £6.3
million, according to the Deloitte Football Money League.
Aston Villa WFC plays some of its matches at the 41,000
capacity main stadium, Villa Park, including against Manchester
United in March, which was attended by around 5,000 fans.
Doesn't even rhyme etc etc.
Post by: LeeS on May 15, 2025, 03:51:14 PM
Well Chelsea sold all of themselves to themselves and we're talking about a minority share of ourselves to someone else.
Which is the same as getting any outside investor to join you, like we have done on the club as a whole (eg Atairos).
The Reddit guy buying a share in Chelsea would seem to vindicate the recent valuation of the Chelsea to Chelsea sale.
I like the idea of selling a little bit of our team each year to prop up the FFP. Especially, as the women’s game is growing so the value may just keep increasing.
Post by: Concrete Tom on May 15, 2025, 04:08:51 PM
Well Chelsea sold all of themselves to themselves and we're talking about a minority share of ourselves to someone else.
Which is the same as getting any outside investor to join you, like we have done on the club as a whole (eg Atairos).
The Reddit guy buying a share in Chelsea would seem to vindicate the recent valuation of the Chelsea to Chelsea sale.
I like the idea of selling a little bit of our team each year to prop up the FFP. Especially, as the women’s game is growing so the value may just keep increasing.
A £20m investment for 10% of Chelsea women conveniently arrives shortly after Chelsea sell Chelsea women to themselves for £200m, thus validating the contentious valuation...
I must be a cynic.
Post by: adrenachrome on May 15, 2025, 09:55:12 PM
There is a bit more below...
By David Hellier and Aaron Kirchfeld
(Bloomberg) -- Premier League football club Aston Villa is
considering the sale of a minority stake in its women’s team,
according to people familiar with the situation.
Aston Villa WFC may sell a stake of 10% to 20% and is
attracting interest from several sports business operators and
investors including backers of teams from the US National
Women’s Soccer League, the people said. The owners may seek a
valuation of up to £60 million ($80.1 million), one of them
said, asking not to be named discussing private information.
No terms have been agreed and it is possible that Aston
Villa, owned by Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris, as well as the
American investment company Atairos, decide not to sell a stake.
Aston Villa WFC currently stands in 10th place in the Women’s
Super League.
A spokesperson from Aston Villa declined to comment.
The valuation of women’s football teams have been
increasing, marked by last year’s $250 million valuation of the
NWSL’s Angel City FC, bought by Willow Bay and husband Bob Iger,
the Disney chief executive officer.
Unlike the US, the majority of women’s teams in the UK are
owned by larger men’s teams. With the growth in popularity in
women’s football, combined with increasing valuations, UK club
owners have been looking at selling stakes to raise cash and
comply with financial regulations.
Chelsea was the first English club to consider selling a
stake in its women’s team, Bloomberg reported last year. After
failing to sell to an external investor, Chelsea decided instead
to sell the team to its own parent company, claiming a £200
million valuation that has enabled the club to stay within
financial fair play rules. The sale has yet to be approved by
the Premier League.
Although interest in women’s football has been growing
significantly in recent years, its revenues are still small.
Aston Villa’s women’s team revenue for 2023/24 is listed as £6.3
million, according to the Deloitte Football Money League.
Aston Villa WFC plays some of its matches at the 41,000
capacity main stadium, Villa Park, including against Manchester
United in March, which was attended by around 5,000 fans.
Doesn't even rhyme etc etc.
Gilbert O'Sullivan.
Good song.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 27, 2025, 04:14:34 PM
Post by: Duncan Shaw on May 27, 2025, 04:23:00 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 27, 2025, 04:40:49 PM
Dave Powell, IMO the best explainer of PSR/FFP/SCR, has an article about our situation in the Mail. As I suspected, it’s not as bad as many portray. I won’t post the link as I’m still traumatised from trying to read it on their terrible site. Would be great if someone could post just the text.
I'll try...
Quote
Aston Villa have reportedly been in discussions with UEFA’s club financial control body (CFCB) in relation to their exceptional wage-to-revenue ratio.
In 2023/24, Villa exceeded UEFA’s permitted allowance of 80 per cent, and The Guardian claims they will struggle to comply with the bodies’ squad cost ratio rules this season without raising revenue via player sales before the end of June.
Reports claim the CFCB will advise Villa to cut their wage bill and are also likely to make them submit a spending plan.
After a lucrative Champions League campaign, Villa’s revenue is expected to increase to around £360m this season, according to outgoing president of business operations, Chris Heck.
But Villa will be playing Europa League football in the next campaign after a controversial ending to the season saw the club fail to qualify for UEFA’s elite club competition again.
Last season, Villa’s wage bill was the 10th highest in Europe when they were also paying out more than Bayern Munich.
Football finance expert, Dave Powell, explained how Villa’s fluctuating revenues and wages could impact on their summer plans.
“With Heck having already revealed where the club expects revenues to sit for the 2024/25 financial year, we can make some assumptions as to Villa’s wage to revenue ratio,” Powell said.
“Using the lower estimate of the £360m that Heck had previously stated, Villa’s wages to turnover ratio will be on the decline for the current financial period.
“For 2023/24, Villa’s wage bill increased by £58m, a rise of 30%, from £194m to £252m, meaning that in the last two years alone the wage bill had grown £115m (84%) due to heavy investment into the playing squad. That sum up to the end of the financial year at the end of June 2024 meant that the ratio of wages to turnover had actually increased from 89% to 91%.
“However, the 2023/24 period was one over 13 months instead of 12 as Villa moved the end of their financial year from May to June. The wage bill would have been lower otherwise.
“It’s hard to put an exact figure on where Villa’s wage bill will stand for the current financial year, which has a month left to go, but in taking on wages for the likes of Marcus Rashford and Marco Asensio, as well as the permanent signings of players like Donyell Malen, it is likely that the wage bill will have increased significantly.
“It has previously been reported that Villa were on the hook for at least 75% of Rashford’s £325,000 per week wages (£243,750). Using that figure, and basing it over the last 12 weeks, that is £2.9m in wages. Say that Asensio’s stay has cost £1.5m in wages, and other additions and renewals have also taken place during the financial year, we could assume that Villa’s wages could climb to £270m per year. With some exits, such as Jhon Duran, that may offer some reduction but there is likely to be a net increase year on year, reflective of the investment by NSWE in the on-field product.
“Using that as a rough estimate, against revenues of £360m that would be 75% in terms of wages to revenue ratio. Were wages to remain stagnant, which they almost certainly won’t, it would be around 70%.
“UEFA has a rule in place for its competitions which clubs must abide by, and that is its squad cost ratio rule. That is the cost of wages, amortisation and agents fees against turnover and profit from player sales.
“Clubs have a limit of 70% but there is some flexibility over that at present on a sliding scale, with the first year being 90%, year two 80% and year three from the change in rules at 70%. This year it is 70%, although there will be a light touch taken to clubs that exceed that by a reasonable amount via fines as opposed to competitive sanctions.
“The squad cost ratio for 2023/24 in terms of UEFA’s rules stood at 86% with revenues and profits on player sales being at £346m. With revenues at potentially £360m for 2025, and wages, say £270m, add in amortisation at a rough £105m, and player sale profit, aided by Duran’s exit, and sales of the likes of Cameron Archer and Douglas Luiz (Moussa Diaby was largely cost neutral), then profit of potentially more than £80m could be achieved.
“Using the £80m figure, added to the £360m, then factoring in a wage estimate of £270m, amortisation of £105m and a guesstimate of agents fees of £10m, then that would be 87.5m, a percentage point above their position last season.
“The above figures are estimates and some fluctuations either way are to be expected, but it’s likely that the club remains within the region of that mid to late 80s in terms of a squad cost ratio percentage. That may incur a fine if so, but they wouldn’t be slapped with sanctions given the amount of clubs that will face a similar scenario.”
Post by: Rigadon on May 27, 2025, 04:55:33 PM
Post by: caster troy on May 27, 2025, 05:05:13 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 27, 2025, 05:06:32 PM
£252m was over 13 months not 12, so if nothing had changed we'd have been looking at £232m for last year.
As a % of the £360m figure (which I think is a safe guess) it's almost exactly 70%.
Since then we've had outs of:
Diaby, Lenglet, Zaniolo, Luiz, Chambers, Moreno (and some kids) for the year. I'd reckon that lot accounts for something towards £30m saved (£202m running cost)
and
Carlos, Duran, Buendia (and some kids) for 5-6months. I'd say another £4-5m saved here, lets be conservative (£198m)
Inbound:
Onana, Maatsen, Barkley, Barrenechea, Iling-Junior (and some kids). Given the figures floating around on line I'm guess that's about £20m (so £218m)
and
Malen, Garcia, Disasi, Rashford, Asensio. Again going by online guess that about £15m (so £233m)
There's been a few new contracts on top and I suspect missing out on the top 4 means lower bonuses so lets account for those and add another £17m to the bill as a safe bet. That'd leave us with a wage bill of £250m which is just inside the 70%. To me that makes perfect sense because we knew it was a target and both Monchi and Vidagany talked about needing to be mindful of it when we sold Diaby.
On sales we made a decent profit overall for the season (about £45m) and once you account for incomings being amortised it's probably a fair bit higher than that, largely due to the £60m profit on Duran.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 27, 2025, 05:29:13 PM
Post by: Stu82 on May 27, 2025, 05:30:07 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 27, 2025, 05:30:10 PM
Daily or Birmingham?
Birmingham.
Post by: Ads on May 27, 2025, 05:31:34 PM
Post by: brontebilly on May 27, 2025, 05:45:08 PM
Post by: Ads on May 27, 2025, 06:01:43 PM
Post by: astonvilla82 on May 27, 2025, 06:12:42 PM
Now to offer some thoughts of my own.I don't think these figures are correct,so I am popping over to the Birmingham biggest club in the world forum for legal clarification on the matter
£252m was over 13 months not 12, so if nothing had changed we'd have been looking at £232m for last year.
As a % of the £360m figure (which I think is a safe guess) it's almost exactly 70%.
Since then we've had outs of:
Diaby, Lenglet, Zaniolo, Luiz, Chambers, Moreno (and some kids) for the year. I'd reckon that lot accounts for something towards £30m saved (£202m running cost)
and
Carlos, Duran, Buendia (and some kids) for 5-6months. I'd say another £4-5m saved here, lets be conservative (£198m)
Inbound:
Onana, Maatsen, Barkley, Barrenechea, Iling-Junior (and some kids). Given the figures floating around on line I'm guess that's about £20m (so £218m)
and
Malen, Garcia, Disasi, Rashford, Asensio. Again going by online guess that about £15m (so £233m)
There's been a few new contracts on top and I suspect missing out on the top 4 means lower bonuses so lets account for those and add another £17m to the bill as a safe bet. That'd leave us with a wage bill of £250m which is just inside the 70%. To me that makes perfect sense because we knew it was a target and both Monchi and Vidagany talked about needing to be mindful of it when we sold Diaby.
On sales we made a decent profit overall for the season (about £45m) and once you account for incomings being amortised it's probably a fair bit higher than that, largely due to the £60m profit on Duran.
Post by: paul_e on May 27, 2025, 07:02:24 PM
Now to offer some thoughts of my own.I don't think these figures are correct,so I am popping over to the Birmingham biggest club in the world forum for legal clarification on the matter
£252m was over 13 months not 12, so if nothing had changed we'd have been looking at £232m for last year.
As a % of the £360m figure (which I think is a safe guess) it's almost exactly 70%.
Since then we've had outs of:
Diaby, Lenglet, Zaniolo, Luiz, Chambers, Moreno (and some kids) for the year. I'd reckon that lot accounts for something towards £30m saved (£202m running cost)
and
Carlos, Duran, Buendia (and some kids) for 5-6months. I'd say another £4-5m saved here, lets be conservative (£198m)
Inbound:
Onana, Maatsen, Barkley, Barrenechea, Iling-Junior (and some kids). Given the figures floating around on line I'm guess that's about £20m (so £218m)
and
Malen, Garcia, Disasi, Rashford, Asensio. Again going by online guess that about £15m (so £233m)
There's been a few new contracts on top and I suspect missing out on the top 4 means lower bonuses so lets account for those and add another £17m to the bill as a safe bet. That'd leave us with a wage bill of £250m which is just inside the 70%. To me that makes perfect sense because we knew it was a target and both Monchi and Vidagany talked about needing to be mindful of it when we sold Diaby.
On sales we made a decent profit overall for the season (about £45m) and once you account for incomings being amortised it's probably a fair bit higher than that, largely due to the £60m profit on Duran.
I know you're joking but, just for clarity, the increases and decreases are mostly guesswork based on rumoured wages, etc but I doubt it's going to be far off either way.
Post by: OCD on May 27, 2025, 07:03:50 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 27, 2025, 07:08:29 PM
I don't think we spend £20m+ on Malen and £7m on the Turkish lad if we're really worried about PSR.
or authorise something around £10-12m in wages for Asensio, Rashford and Disasi. That's why I suspect my numbers above are pretty close, I just can't see them knowingly going over the 70% by any meaningful amount.
For Premier League FFP I'd be surprised if we don't report a decent sized profit for this season, with something like selling the womens team to ourselves as the option to top that up to ensure we're well within the 3 year average.
Post by: tomd2103 on May 27, 2025, 07:12:27 PM
Now to offer some thoughts of my own.I don't think these figures are correct,so I am popping over to the Birmingham biggest club in the world forum for legal clarification on the matter
£252m was over 13 months not 12, so if nothing had changed we'd have been looking at £232m for last year.
As a % of the £360m figure (which I think is a safe guess) it's almost exactly 70%.
Since then we've had outs of:
Diaby, Lenglet, Zaniolo, Luiz, Chambers, Moreno (and some kids) for the year. I'd reckon that lot accounts for something towards £30m saved (£202m running cost)
and
Carlos, Duran, Buendia (and some kids) for 5-6months. I'd say another £4-5m saved here, lets be conservative (£198m)
Inbound:
Onana, Maatsen, Barkley, Barrenechea, Iling-Junior (and some kids). Given the figures floating around on line I'm guess that's about £20m (so £218m)
and
Malen, Garcia, Disasi, Rashford, Asensio. Again going by online guess that about £15m (so £233m)
There's been a few new contracts on top and I suspect missing out on the top 4 means lower bonuses so lets account for those and add another £17m to the bill as a safe bet. That'd leave us with a wage bill of £250m which is just inside the 70%. To me that makes perfect sense because we knew it was a target and both Monchi and Vidagany talked about needing to be mindful of it when we sold Diaby.
On sales we made a decent profit overall for the season (about £45m) and once you account for incomings being amortised it's probably a fair bit higher than that, largely due to the £60m profit on Duran.
Let me save you the bother of seeking their opinions. According to them, we'll.be facing financial meltdown and will be having to sell all our players and the ground this summer.
Post by: walsall villain on May 27, 2025, 07:34:16 PM
It’s worse than that. The club want us to return all those free scarves they dished out so they can flog them on eBay.Now to offer some thoughts of my own.I don't think these figures are correct,so I am popping over to the Birmingham biggest club in the world forum for legal clarification on the matter
£252m was over 13 months not 12, so if nothing had changed we'd have been looking at £232m for last year.
As a % of the £360m figure (which I think is a safe guess) it's almost exactly 70%.
Since then we've had outs of:
Diaby, Lenglet, Zaniolo, Luiz, Chambers, Moreno (and some kids) for the year. I'd reckon that lot accounts for something towards £30m saved (£202m running cost)
and
Carlos, Duran, Buendia (and some kids) for 5-6months. I'd say another £4-5m saved here, lets be conservative (£198m)
Inbound:
Onana, Maatsen, Barkley, Barrenechea, Iling-Junior (and some kids). Given the figures floating around on line I'm guess that's about £20m (so £218m)
and
Malen, Garcia, Disasi, Rashford, Asensio. Again going by online guess that about £15m (so £233m)
There's been a few new contracts on top and I suspect missing out on the top 4 means lower bonuses so lets account for those and add another £17m to the bill as a safe bet. That'd leave us with a wage bill of £250m which is just inside the 70%. To me that makes perfect sense because we knew it was a target and both Monchi and Vidagany talked about needing to be mindful of it when we sold Diaby.
On sales we made a decent profit overall for the season (about £45m) and once you account for incomings being amortised it's probably a fair bit higher than that, largely due to the £60m profit on Duran.
Let me save you the bother. We'll.be facing financial meltdown, will be having to sell all our players and the ground this summer.
Post by: Toronto Villa on May 27, 2025, 10:08:28 PM
https://x.com/paddypower/status/1927397630797066635?s=46
Post by: eamonn on May 27, 2025, 11:42:18 PM
Also in one of the long articles posted in the last couple of pages, there's reference to £70m being spent by Edens and Sawiris on infrastructure. I assume that is mostly BH upgrades and the Brookvale Academy.
Post by: ozzjim on May 27, 2025, 11:58:59 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 28, 2025, 12:24:40 AM
Forgive me here, but I just don't understand how, after selling Luiz, Diaby, Duran, Philogene, Kellyman, Ireogbunum etc, for what near on £180 million, plus increased turnover to £350 million, how on earth are we still needing to sell at least 2 major players this summer. I get we've bought players, spread over the contract lengths etc, but there still seems a huge mismatch in the rhetoric and the figures
Isn’t it this year where the grealish bounty falls outside the qualifying period?
Post by: Somniloquism on May 28, 2025, 12:59:48 AM
Let me save you the bother of seeking their opinions. According to them, we'll.be facing financial meltdown and will be having to sell all our players and the ground this summer.
There are some on here predicting the same thing.
Post by: Somniloquism on May 28, 2025, 01:01:55 AM
Forgive me here, but I just don't understand how, after selling Luiz, Diaby, Duran, Philogene, Kellyman, Ireogbunum etc, for what near on £180 million, plus increased turnover to £350 million, how on earth are we still needing to sell at least 2 major players this summer. I get we've bought players, spread over the contract lengths etc, but there still seems a huge mismatch in the rhetoric and the figures
Isn’t it this year where the grealish bounty falls outside the qualifying period?
Last year I thought.
Post by: tomd2103 on May 28, 2025, 01:10:29 AM
Forgive me here, but I just don't understand how, after selling Luiz, Diaby, Duran, Philogene, Kellyman, Ireogbunum etc, for what near on £180 million, plus increased turnover to £350 million, how on earth are we still needing to sell at least 2 major players this summer. I get we've bought players, spread over the contract lengths etc, but there still seems a huge mismatch in the rhetoric and the figures
Isn’t it this year where the grealish bounty falls outside the qualifying period?
That's my understanding of it and it's the point where the substantial loss of £120m (some reports suggest that figure is £96m after deductions) becomes 'year one'. The PSR figures were explained in an article on Birmingham Live a few months ago:
"Villa lost almost £120m for the 2022/23 accounting period, but Swiss Ramble figures estimate that the loss this time around will be around £82m. With allowable deductions of around £27m, up £3m from the previous year, and with the June player sales of the likes of Tim Iroegbunam, Omari Kellyman and Douglas Luiz realising profit, and to be accounted for in the soon-to-be published 2023/24 accounts, the PSR net result for the year is estimated to be a negative £20m.
"What that means in terms of the rolling three-year picture, which includes a positive PSR net result of £22m for 2021/22, a period when Villa sold Jack Grealish to Manchester City for £100m, and a £96m PSR deficit for 2022/23, is that Villa are estimated to fall £12m under the threshold for PSR for the current assessment period, meaning that they are likely to escape any Premier League punishment for breaching".
"However, there is work to be done, and the desire for Villa to raise the PSR threshold to £135m from £105m over three years, which they argued in favour of, is understandable given the tight breathing space".
"The Swiss Ramble figures forecast that, as things stand, Villa would only be able to post a £17m loss in 2024/25 to be compliant with PSR, and that takes into consideration the increased revenue that is to be enjoyed this season, a rise of some £45m anticipated".
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 28, 2025, 02:13:14 AM
Forgive me here, but I just don't understand how, after selling Luiz, Diaby, Duran, Philogene, Kellyman, Ireogbunum etc, for what near on £180 million, plus increased turnover to £350 million, how on earth are we still needing to sell at least 2 major players this summer. I get we've bought players, spread over the contract lengths etc, but there still seems a huge mismatch in the rhetoric and the figures
Isn’t it this year where the grealish bounty falls outside the qualifying period?
That's my understanding of it and it's the point where the substantial loss of £120m (some reports suggest that figure is £96m after deductions) becomes 'year one'. The PSR figures were explained in an article on Birmingham Live a few months ago:
"Villa lost almost £120m for the 2022/23 accounting period, but Swiss Ramble figures estimate that the loss this time around will be around £82m. With allowable deductions of around £27m, up £3m from the previous year, and with the June player sales of the likes of Tim Iroegbunam, Omari Kellyman and Douglas Luiz realising profit, and to be accounted for in the soon-to-be published 2023/24 accounts, the PSR net result for the year is estimated to be a negative £20m.
"What that means in terms of the rolling three-year picture, which includes a positive PSR net result of £22m for 2021/22, a period when Villa sold Jack Grealish to Manchester City for £100m, and a £96m PSR deficit for 2022/23, is that Villa are estimated to fall £12m under the threshold for PSR for the current assessment period, meaning that they are likely to escape any Premier League punishment for breaching".
"However, there is work to be done, and the desire for Villa to raise the PSR threshold to £135m from £105m over three years, which they argued in favour of, is understandable given the tight breathing space".
"The Swiss Ramble figures forecast that, as things stand, Villa would only be able to post a £17m loss in 2024/25 to be compliant with PSR, and that takes into consideration the increased revenue that is to be enjoyed this season, a rise of some £45m anticipated".
Well, the rise turned out to be double that.
Post by: ROBBO on May 28, 2025, 03:12:13 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on May 28, 2025, 05:28:01 AM
I don't know how they can penalise any club without the Man City debacle being adjudicated and them being demoted to league 1.I am pretty sure that any club would try and use that in mitigation.
Post by: sid1964 on May 28, 2025, 06:37:45 AM
Other clubs don’t seem to have issues so why do we?
Another few weeks of seeing who stays or goes
Post by: dorsetvillian on May 28, 2025, 06:44:29 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 28, 2025, 07:06:53 AM
It does seem as though whatever we do as a club (get into the later stages of the champions league etc..) it is never enough to get us out of our FFP situation
Other clubs don’t seem to have issues so why do we?
Because we actively try to invest in the squad to the absolute legal limit.
Post by: Rigadon on May 28, 2025, 07:12:03 AM
Post by: ozzjim on May 28, 2025, 07:20:06 AM
Post by: manic-road on May 28, 2025, 07:55:20 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on May 28, 2025, 09:07:52 AM
It does seem as though whatever we do as a club (get into the later stages of the champions league etc..) it is never enough to get us out of our FFP situation
Other clubs don’t seem to have issues so why do we?
Another few weeks of seeing who stays or goes
And the usual CL qualifiers have much, much bigger commercial income to offset spending against.
Post by: tomd2103 on May 28, 2025, 09:22:53 AM
It does seem as though whatever we do as a club (get into the later stages of the champions league etc..) it is never enough to get us out of our FFP situation
Other clubs don’t seem to have issues so why do we?
Another few weeks of seeing who stays or goes
It's widely reported that we have the 10th highest wage bill in European football, yet our revenue is still way off that kind of level (although it has increased).
To put it into context, in the 23/24 season, according to the Deloitte list our revenue was over €200m less than the team.in 11th (Borussia Dortmund). That is the problem.
Post by: baddowvillans on May 28, 2025, 09:37:23 AM
It does seem as though whatever we do as a club (get into the later stages of the champions league etc..) it is never enough to get us out of our FFP situation
Other clubs don’t seem to have issues so why do we?
Another few weeks of seeing who stays or goes
Newcastle have had exactly the same issues
Post by: VinnieChase84 on May 28, 2025, 09:53:02 AM
Issue for us is we WANT to continue to bring in new and refresh squad. Its in doing that which means we have to sell.
IF we had wanted to then outside of selling a few "squad players/loanees" in june - then we could have kept the entire same team/sold no one and bought no one
Post by: cdbearsfan on May 28, 2025, 09:59:38 AM
If its any comfort psr isnt this summer/june anywhere near as bad as it was last year!
Doesn't this mean that it will just be much worse next season, with no Champions League/Durán to boost the figures?
Post by: VinnieChase84 on May 28, 2025, 10:04:08 AM
If its any comfort psr isnt this summer/june anywhere near as bad as it was last year!
Doesn't this mean that it will just be much worse next season, with no Champions League/Durán to boost the figures?
Not necessarily, the 3rd year of psr falls off and is replaced by our best one yet
Post by: cdbearsfan on May 28, 2025, 10:04:32 AM
Post by: paul_e on May 28, 2025, 10:04:40 AM
If its any comfort psr isnt this summer/june anywhere near as bad as it was last year! Plus we have a big loss year falling out of calculations this coming season and being replaced by our highest revenue one
Issue for us is we WANT to continue to bring in new and refresh squad. Its in doing that which means we have to sell.
IF we had wanted to then outside of selling a few "squad players/loanees" in june - then we could have kept the entire same team/sold no one and bought no one
That backs up where I think we should be with my shitty napkin maths based on in and outs and Heck's £360m revenue comments.
Post by: Dave on May 28, 2025, 10:18:08 AM
If its any comfort psr isnt this summer/june anywhere near as bad as it was last year!
Doesn't this mean that it will just be much worse next season, with no Champions League/Durán to boost the figures?
Not necessarily, the 3rd year of psr falls off and is replaced by our best one yet
Arent we juggling two sets of figures though?
We're trying to meet PSR for the Premier League, but assuming we're planning on doing "European stuff", we also have to meet Financial Sustainability Regulations for UEFA, which "limits a club's spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of its revenue. This rule is being implemented gradually, starting with a 90% threshold in the 2023/24 season, 80% in 2024/25, and then permanently 70% from 2025/26".
So the rolling three year Premier League version is getting better as you say, but lack of Champions League money next season is happening at the worst possible time for the UEFA version as it will see a 25/26 revenue drop at the same time the limit reduces permanently as well.
I think this summer isn't necessary about trying to avoid points deductions in 25/26 à la Nottingham Forest, it's so that in season 26/27 UEFA don't kick us out of the Champions League because our wages are 85% of next years reduced revenue.
Post by: ozzjim on May 28, 2025, 10:36:46 AM
Post by: Rotterdam on May 28, 2025, 10:38:20 AM
'Buendia £10m minimum
Barry - £5-10m
Iling Junior - £5-10m
Enzo - £15m
Dendonker - free
Coutinho - free
Ned - £10-15m
Bailey - £20-25m
That's best part of £100m there.'
I agree Dendonker and Coutinho released on a free.
I doubt Barry would go for £10m and Junior/Buendia probably wouldn't command a fee of £10m either. Maybe £15m for the three?
Personally, I'd keep Ned and Enzo.
My thoughts are Emi and Bailey will go for around £50m. Emi goes to Barca and Leon either return to German or Saudi.
Barkley maybe sold for £3m or so.
If we can pull in £65 for the above, that should keep the wolf from the door.
Purely guesswork obviously.
Post by: eamonn on May 28, 2025, 10:53:14 AM
But I think your transfer estimates are all a little on the low side.
Post by: Dogtanian on May 28, 2025, 11:26:15 AM
Accounts wise, it didn't make sense to do it last year as you would be taking two years worth of hit in one financial year. But now he's down to one year, it doesn't matter.
Not sure of the ins and outs, but perhaps it is possible to settle his contract and not class it as salary so the final year doesn't go into the salary percentage calculations?
Post by: AV82EC on May 28, 2025, 11:29:29 AM
I would imagine Coutinho will be cut adrift this summer.
Accounts wise, it didn't make sense to do it last year as you would be taking two years worth of hit in one financial year. But now he's down to one year, it doesn't matter.
Not sure of the ins and outs, but perhaps it is possible to settle his contract and not class it as salary so the final year doesn't go into the salary percentage calculations?
What make him redundant so it’s an exceptional cost? I like your thinking Dogtanian.
Being serious it maybe settling the contract with just one year to run rather than continually paying out is the better option. We’ll see.
Post by: PeterWithe on May 28, 2025, 11:31:55 AM
Post by: Dave on May 28, 2025, 11:52:09 AM
Always been a bit of a surprise we haven't been able to get a Saudi club in for him to cover the wage. He's been one of the biggest names in football over the recent past.
We did get a Qatari one to do so last season.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 28, 2025, 12:11:22 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on May 28, 2025, 12:25:20 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 28, 2025, 12:32:38 PM
Post by: London Villan on May 28, 2025, 12:36:45 PM
Post by: Tokyo Sexwhale on May 28, 2025, 02:36:42 PM
Surely the Brazilian club is paying some of his wages whilst on loan, so would it be better for us to let his contract die down or pay off the lump sum? I would have thought the former if we are skirting the wage boundaries.
If we're talking about being compliant with UEFA's salary cap; then it may be that Coutinho's salary counts towards that; but a loan fee doesn't as it isn't salary.
Post by: OCD on May 28, 2025, 03:24:38 PM
Also shows an additional benefit of keeping a manager - we are now close to getting rid of the previous two managers' cast-offs and failures...
And making the right choice in the first place.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 28, 2025, 03:25:22 PM
Also shows an additional benefit of keeping a manager - we are now close to getting rid of the previous two managers' cast-offs and failures...
Mental isn’t it. Stability is taken for granted but it’s probably the key ingredient for sustained growth. Man U and Spurs are great examples of how not to do it, with each new manager demanding £100m to shape the squad, resulting in a new bomb squad each time.
Post by: brontebilly on May 28, 2025, 08:15:50 PM
Coutinho still has a year left so he'll continue to be one of the highest paid players at the club until June 2026.
Must be one of our biggest ever flops - Micah Richards level
Post by: Tokyo Sexwhale on May 28, 2025, 08:16:52 PM
Coutinho still has a year left so he'll continue to be one of the highest paid players at the club until June 2026.
Must be one of our biggest ever flops - Micah Richards level
Nah, Coutinho actually had a couple of good games.
Post by: ASHTONVILLA on May 29, 2025, 12:44:42 AM
If any club sells their women's team to another company/person; isn't that just a franchise that has use of a name/IP?
What connection would it then have to the men's club? Why would you support it/give a shit about its results when it has no links other than the name?
I already don't give a shit, neither do many looking at the crowds. If it sorts us out then great, sell the whole thing and move it to another town for all I care.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on May 29, 2025, 03:04:27 AM
Post by: LeonW on May 29, 2025, 04:50:57 AM
Coutinho still has a year left so he'll continue to be one of the highest paid players at the club until June 2026.
Must be one of our biggest ever flops - Micah Richards level
Nah, Coutinho actually had a couple of good games.
Yes. It wasn’t just that the scouse chancer wanted him. Man Utd home, Leeds home and away, Southampton at home, he was truly magical. There may be other games I missed but they spring to mind. He looked immense.
Post by: Somniloquism on May 29, 2025, 07:49:29 AM
Surely the Brazilian club is paying some of his wages whilst on loan, so would it be better for us to let his contract die down or pay off the lump sum? I would have thought the former if we are skirting the wage boundaries.
If we're talking about being compliant with UEFA's salary cap; then it may be that Coutinho's salary counts towards that; but a loan fee doesn't as it isn't salary.
Is it a loan fee?
Post by: Dante Lavelli on May 29, 2025, 08:40:58 AM
Wasn’t gerrard’s payoff listed as something weird in the books?
Post by: Dogtanian on May 29, 2025, 09:23:26 AM
And didn't we hire some legal expert specifically to look at PSR compliance? If anyone can find a loophole, Señor Unknown Legal-Expert can!
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 29, 2025, 10:11:11 AM
If any club sells their women's team to another company/person; isn't that just a franchise that has use of a name/IP?
What connection would it then have to the men's club? Why would you support it/give a shit about its results when it has no links other than the name?
I already don't give a shit, neither do many looking at the crowds. If it sorts us out then great, sell the whole thing and move it to another town for all I care.
I’d say that would be pretty shortsighted. The women’s game is clearly growing, so purely from a commercial standpoint we should be thinking of that and that’s without thinking about wider societal arguments.
Post by: Dogtanian on May 29, 2025, 10:18:52 AM
Villa till I die... as long as there's a penis?
:-\
Post by: Sexual Ealing on May 29, 2025, 10:37:59 AM
Post by: VILLA MOLE on May 29, 2025, 10:41:34 AM
Post by: ASHTONVILLA on May 29, 2025, 12:06:44 PM
I lack the time or head space to follow multiple Villa teams, and wouldn't notice if they were sold. I suspect a lot of other posters here are the same and don't really follow them. It'd be the same if Villa had a basketball team, or teams in other countries.
Post by: Chris Stares on May 29, 2025, 01:50:43 PM
I’d say that would be pretty shortsighted. The women’s game is clearly growing, so purely from a commercial standpoint we should be thinking of that and that’s without thinking about wider societal arguments.
I agree with the general sentiment, and, although it may be slightly off-topic, part of the reason I believe that many are losing interest (including myself to some extent) is due to the massive disparity between the perpetually successful teams and the rest (which includes Villa). The serial dominance of Arsenal and Chelsea means that they just pick off the best talent (Hannah Hampton and Daphne van Domselaar being just two examples from Villa to Chelsea/Arsenal respectively, who effectively used Villa as an entry point into the WSL). I know that happens in the Premier League too, but it is slightly more balanced. Unless this disparity is addressed by the authorities, then I can see why interest in supporting teams who are "making up the numbers", despite supporting the club's corresponding men's team, is waning somewhat (notwithstanding the occasional upset like Villa's recent 5-2 victory over Arsenal, for example).
Post by: cdbearsfan on May 29, 2025, 01:59:23 PM
I agree with expanding the league, but they must maintain at least one relegation spot while they make the transition. I would also have it so three or four teams go into a playoff for the final Champions League spot.
Post by: Rigadon on May 29, 2025, 03:58:57 PM
I'm not anti womens football per se, I am just being honest about how much interest I take in the Villa womens team. I couldn't name a single player and have no idea how they got on the league.
I lack the time or head space to follow multiple Villa teams, and wouldn't notice if they were sold. I suspect a lot of other posters here are the same and don't really follow them. It'd be the same if Villa had a basketball team, or teams in other countries.
I'd have thought most fans are in a similar boat with how much they know about the women's Villa side, I know I am.
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on May 29, 2025, 06:07:24 PM
Oh, there's always a penis in this debate. Normally the ones moaning about women's football.
Also the classic 'just thinking about themselves' shit and not caring about anyone else.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2025, 06:26:09 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on May 29, 2025, 06:30:47 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 29, 2025, 06:34:31 PM
Well, we are! We are also being brainwashed into watching men’s football, buying Coca Cola, and thinking Apple products are cool.
Having read the replies to Henry Winter’s tweet on the subject, I can see my daft friend is not alone on this:
https://x.com/henrywinter/status/1928099150559691074?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Post by: Ian. on May 29, 2025, 06:48:55 PM
The future of women’s football is extremely bright, it’s only going to get more and more popular.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 29, 2025, 06:57:29 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on May 29, 2025, 07:07:49 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on May 29, 2025, 07:13:42 PM
I’m glad that’s the case - it’d be mad, given the level of competition, to have a plan that is too reliant on Champions League revenue.
Genuinely, did people (ie the media) really think we'd be stupid enough to do a Leeds-style 'now we've got there once, let's plan for being there every season' thing?
Post by: paul_e on May 29, 2025, 07:30:30 PM
We had a big loss in 22/23 and another big loss in 23/24 which by all accounts left us squeezing just inside the rules. With the first of those 2 dropping off, and this likely to be the last season of PSR we're in a much safer position.
I wouldn't be shocked if we announce a profit for 24/25 given the £100m in extra revenue and £40m surplus in player trading. That being the case we probably have a lot of leeway for those rules.
The one that is going to be tougher are the UEFA 70% wages rule which I suspect we're running very tight to, and if revenue does drop as a result of missing out on the Champions League that will be what makes us take some steps to reduce the wage bill.
However, because we have space to crystallise a loss or 2 I wouldn't be shocked if we try to negotiate Coutinho and Dendoncker going for free/cheap to save something like £10-12m a year.
Add to that sales of players we either don't want or can live without and I think we can probably get that under control pretty easily but we may well need to let people go so we can refresh the squad, which seems to be the same message that's coming from the club.
Post by: LeeS on May 29, 2025, 08:54:17 PM
So we don’t just add £50m for Diaby and deduct £50m for Onana. We deduct the balance of Diaby’s non-amortised purchase from his £50m but we only have to account for 20% of Onana’s.
Which sounds great except we are still accounting for portions of Bailey’s, Pau’s, Nexeljkovic’s, Moreno’s, Coutinho’s, Dendoncker’s and even Buendia’s transfers from prior years.
Post by: N'ZMAV on May 29, 2025, 08:55:39 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 29, 2025, 08:58:00 PM
The profit in player trading is harder to calculate. You can’t just say we spent less than we took in this year. Our receipts have to account for how much was left to amortise on a prior contract. And our outgoings are spread across the lengths of new contracts.
So we don’t just add £50m for Diaby and deduct £50m for Onana. We deduct the balance of Diaby’s non-amortised purchase from his £50m but we only have to account for 20% of Onana’s.
Which sounds great except we are still accounting for portions of Bailey’s, Pau’s, Nexeljkovic’s, Moreno’s, Coutinho’s, Dendoncker’s and even Buendia’s transfers from prior years.
I know, but a £40m surplus is still going to have an impact, it's just hard to know exactly how much.
Post by: Somniloquism on May 29, 2025, 09:07:18 PM
Well, we are! We are also being brainwashed into watching men’s football, buying Coca Cola, and thinking Apple products are cool.
Having read the replies to Henry Winter’s tweet on the subject, I can see my daft friend is not alone on this:
https://x.com/henrywinter/status/1928099150559691074?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Looking at the one guys profile whose reply was "no thanks, I would rather miss out on a ST", I would rather you missed out on a an ST as well.
Post by: Tuscans on May 30, 2025, 12:02:14 AM
Post by: tomd2103 on May 30, 2025, 12:16:18 AM
I think next season things will be much easier in terms of PSR.
We had a big loss in 22/23 and another big loss in 23/24 which by all accounts left us squeezing just inside the rules. With the first of those 2 dropping off, and this likely to be the last season of PSR we're in a much safer position.
I wouldn't be shocked if we announce a profit for 24/25 given the £100m in extra revenue and £40m surplus in player trading. That being the case we probably have a lot of leeway for those rules.
The one that is going to be tougher are the UEFA 70% wages rule which I suspect we're running very tight to, and if revenue does drop as a result of missing out on the Champions League that will be what makes us take some steps to reduce the wage bill.
However, because we have space to crystallise a loss or 2 I wouldn't be shocked if we try to negotiate Coutinho and Dendoncker going for free/cheap to save something like £10-12m a year.
Add to that sales of players we either don't want or can live without and I think we can probably get that under control pretty easily but we may well need to let people go so we can refresh the squad, which seems to be the same message that's coming from the club.
Yep, PSR rules changing just as we are getting on top of it. From the article I posted a few pages ago, after deductibles we had a £96m loss in 22/23 and a £20m loss in 23/24. That article said there is a maximum of £27m you can claim in deductibles, so estimated that we could only make a £17m loss this season.
If you're right Paul and we've made a profit for 24/25 and claim the maximum deductibles, then we should be fine for this year. As you say, the £96m would drop off next year, so if we did make a profit, we'd be in a very healthy PSR position. Just in time for the rules to change!
Post by: BC54 VFC on May 30, 2025, 12:18:37 AM
I think next season things will be much easier in terms of PSR.Surely it's absolutely essential that we make a decent profit in the year to 06/25, because of the large losses made in the year ended 05/23, and the 13 month asccounting period to 06/24. As I understand it the position is averaged over the three most recent seasons, and the profit made principally because of the sale of JG in 08/21, in the year to 05/22, will now drop off the calculation.
We had a big loss in 22/23 and another big loss in 23/24 which by all accounts left us squeezing just inside the rules. With the first of those 2 dropping off, and this likely to be the last season of PSR we're in a much safer position.
I wouldn't be shocked if we announce a profit for 24/25 given the £100m in extra revenue and £40m surplus in player trading. That being the case we probably have a lot of leeway for those rules.
The one that is going to be tougher are the UEFA 70% wages rule which I suspect we're running very tight to, and if revenue does drop as a result of missing out on the Champions League that will be what makes us take some steps to reduce the wage bill.
However, because we have space to crystallise a loss or 2 I wouldn't be shocked if we try to negotiate Coutinho and Dendoncker going for free/cheap to save something like £10-12m a year.
Add to that sales of players we either don't want or can live without and I think we can probably get that under control pretty easily but we may well need to let people go so we can refresh the squad, which seems to be the same message that's coming from the club.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 30, 2025, 02:29:20 AM
Kieron Maguire is estimating we have a deficit of approximately £20 million give or take to make up. Quoting we are in a better position then this time last year.
I heard that. I’m surprised he didn’t explain things better to Justin, who was having a breakdown over the wages to revenue turnover. He should get Dave Powell from Reach on, but I suppose Maguire gets more clicks.
Post by: Dogtanian on May 30, 2025, 02:35:27 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on May 30, 2025, 09:06:01 AM
I’ve got a conspiracy theorist acquaintance who thinks we are being brainwashed into watching women’s football.
I've also got some conspiracy theorists as mates, they've not bought up this one yet but only because they wont have read about it yet. One of them is a flat earther. It's never been easier to find information easily but we seem to be getting more ignorant.
On the womens game, I've given up a lot of time over the last ten years coaching, administrating and enabling girls football, also taking the kids to pro games, getting them to coaching sessions at Villa, SHA, ferrying them around, yadda, yadda. To sum up I reckon I've done my bit to advance grass roots female football.
But I have close to zero interest in the WSL or pro game, I might irregularly look at Villa results but it holds little interest.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 30, 2025, 09:08:49 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 30, 2025, 09:30:16 AM
So does anyone really know what is going on - is it £20m deficity - is it more?! If it is £20m then surely selling the fringe players will suffice?!
I think that would suffice - the problem may be finding players who other clubs are in a rush to sign before June 30th.
Post by: ozzjim on May 30, 2025, 09:32:10 AM
So does anyone really know what is going on - is it £20m deficity - is it more?! If it is £20m then surely selling the fringe players will suffice?!
I think that would suffice - the problem may be finding players who other clubs are in a rush to sign before June 30th.
Roll up roll up, get your Belgian camel here, comes with an exotic Brazilian free of charge
Post by: PeterWithe on May 30, 2025, 09:34:42 AM
Post by: AV82EC on May 30, 2025, 09:43:59 AM
So does anyone really know what is going on - is it £20m deficity - is it more?! If it is £20m then surely selling the fringe players will suffice?!
I think that would suffice - the problem may be finding players who other clubs are in a rush to sign before June 30th.
I’d take an even more positive viewpoint in that we may not need to even do that. The fact is none of us really know but reading the tea leaves it would seem we’re pretty much ok for EPL PSR compliance on the 3 yr rolling average but maybe the need to sell or at least trim some fat from the squad would be driven by the UEFA SCR compliance position.
None of this should of course distract from the continual battle to keep improving our turnover. The drop off from ECL to EL will potentially be about £30-£40m so bridging that gap is going to be important to keep turnover levels up around the £375m/€400m level so we don’t end up in PSR/SCR problems in subsequent years.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on May 30, 2025, 09:51:25 AM
Post by: AV82EC on May 30, 2025, 09:57:06 AM
I know Spurs will get a big boost from CL revenue but I read the other day that because they finished 17th in the league, a lot of that will be offset by the loss in prize money?
Spurs didn’t need to worry anyway as their commercial income is so vast they can “exist” as a financial big six entity without CL revenue.
Post by: Somniloquism on May 30, 2025, 09:58:03 AM
Post by: Drummond on May 30, 2025, 10:00:17 AM
Full list :
Liverpool – £181.5m
Arsenal – £177.8m
Manchester City – £171.5m
Chelsea – £169.5m
Newcastle United – £165.8m
Aston Villa – £164.6m
Nottingham Forest – £157.5m
Brighton – £149.6m
Bournemouth – £147.6m
Brentford – £143m
Crystal Palace – £139.8m
Manchester United – £139.5m
Fulham – £139.3m
Everton – £135.2m
West Ham United – £134m
Tottenham Hotspur – £130.4m
Wolves – £125.8m
Leicester City – £119.2m
Ipswich Town – £112.9m
Southampton – £110.9m
Post by: Matt C on May 30, 2025, 12:09:32 PM
The bigger challenge is the UEFA wages to turnover ratio rule where it seems we’re way off. Unless we can make more massive leaps in turnover seemingly the only way to comply there is reducing the wage bill.
Post by: Dogtanian on May 30, 2025, 12:12:14 PM
Post by: paul_e on May 30, 2025, 12:44:13 PM
All accounted for I don't see where the costs would be being added to make us go more than £20m over our incoming for the year to create any issues.
Post by: Dogtanian on May 30, 2025, 02:55:06 PM
I personally have bought every single home program, twice, for the lovely stickers, and also seven full-priced shirts.
Post by: TaxDodger on May 30, 2025, 03:18:24 PM
Post by: algy on May 30, 2025, 03:21:56 PM
Reminds me of what could be a very good joke if I could think of a punchline. 'There was a Saudi, a Qatari and a Kuwaiti talking in the desert when one of them bumps into Philip Coutinho.....'Coutinho falls the to ground, when immediately he’s covered by sand. This pile of sand gets bigger and bigger until it gets to the size of a small hill. “Shouldn’t we do something?” says the Kuwaiti. “Not at all” says the Qatari “I always bank with Coutts”
Post by: Percy McCarthy on May 30, 2025, 04:22:50 PM
Having read more than I ever wished to on PSR it seems to me, perhaps wrongly, that we’re not in too bad shape. We need to take some action before end of June - as we would with or without CL - but it’s hardly a fire sale and the people running the club will have known it is coming so I’m sure there’s some contingencies in place. The nagging worry is it leaves us vulnerable to an offer for someone we don’t want to lose if it gets tight on the deadline.
The bigger challenge is the UEFA wages to turnover ratio rule where it seems we’re way off. Unless we can make more massive leaps in turnover seemingly the only way to comply there is reducing the wage bill.
We’re not way off.
Post by: Crown Hill on May 30, 2025, 06:25:28 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on May 30, 2025, 08:28:49 PM
Do we get Archer back again with Southampton relegated?
I hope not.
Post by: cdbearsfan on May 30, 2025, 10:29:15 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 01, 2025, 03:07:33 PM
Reminds me of what could be a very good joke if I could think of a punchline. 'There was a Saudi, a Qatari and a Kuwaiti talking in the desert when one of them bumps into Philip Coutinho.....'Coutinho falls the to ground, when immediately he’s covered by sand. This pile of sand gets bigger and bigger until it gets to the size of a small hill. “Shouldn’t we do something?” says the Kuwaiti. “Not at all” says the Qatari “I always bank with Coutts”
Superb!
Post by: eamonn on June 01, 2025, 04:18:03 PM
We got £164m, Spuds £130.
Full list :
Liverpool – £181.5m
Arsenal – £177.8m
Manchester City – £171.5m
Chelsea – £169.5m
Newcastle United – £165.8m
Aston Villa – £164.6m
Nottingham Forest – £157.5m
Brighton – £149.6m
Bournemouth – £147.6m
Brentford – £143m
Crystal Palace – £139.8m
Manchester United – £139.5m
Fulham – £139.3m
Everton – £135.2m
West Ham United – £134m
Tottenham Hotspur – £130.4m
Wolves – £125.8m
Leicester City – £119.2m
Ipswich Town – £112.9m
Southampton – £110.9m
Sorry, but why are Manchester United up so high? Everton, Fulham and West Ham all finished above them.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 01, 2025, 04:28:04 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 01, 2025, 04:29:11 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 01, 2025, 04:53:39 PM
24/25 £164.6m
23/24: £162.4m
22/23: £142.1m
21/22: £122m
20/21: £122.2m
19/20: £106.1m
Championship:
18/19: £18m
Post by: eamonn on June 01, 2025, 06:06:27 PM
Post by: AV82EC on June 01, 2025, 06:31:02 PM
Villa PL TV money:
24/25 £164.6m
23/24: £162.4m
22/23: £142.1m
21/22: £122m
20/21: £122.2m
19/20: £106.1m
Championship:
18/19: £18m
Henceforth to be known as the Emery effect.
Post by: eamonn on June 01, 2025, 07:57:42 PM
Post by: AV82EC on June 01, 2025, 08:07:05 PM
And how much of that upswing is the poor bugger getting? Barely a mill probably...we don't deserve you Uncle Unai.I bet he’s getting a damn sight more than a million.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 01, 2025, 08:20:11 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 01, 2025, 08:37:24 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 01, 2025, 09:12:02 PM
Plus support for the club him and his family own, increasing it’s value if all goes to plan
His son is employed as a GK too.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 01, 2025, 09:43:36 PM
Post by: ldavfc4eva on June 01, 2025, 09:48:00 PM
Post by: eamonn on June 02, 2025, 03:56:55 PM
And how much of that upswing is the poor bugger getting? Barely a mill probably...we don't deserve you Uncle Unai.I bet he’s getting a damn sight more than a million.
I meant in perf bonuses but yeah maybe he is.
Post by: paul_e on June 03, 2025, 02:15:05 PM
Quote
Severe doubts over Sverre Nypan. #AVFC had been confident of agreement & lots of work went in to convincing player & family. But delays from players' side has caused doubt. Philippe Coutinho contract set to be terminated. UEFA SCR more an issue than PSR.
This lines up with what I've been guessing at with some napkin maths recently.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 03, 2025, 02:17:49 PM
If that's the case, hope he goes on to be the new Dan Crowley.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 03, 2025, 02:32:58 PM
/i'llgetmecoat
Post by: Dogtanian on June 03, 2025, 02:33:05 PM
Sounds more like it is him pissing about after a deal was agreed rather than us backing out because we are skint, as I feared. So not so bad.
If that's the case, hope he goes on to be the new Dan Crowley.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 03, 2025, 04:00:13 PM
If he doesn't want to join sod him, I hope he's just a flash in the Nypan.
/i'llgetmecoat
He will probably end up at Manure. Out of the Nypan into the fire.
Post by: LeeS on June 03, 2025, 04:44:16 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 03, 2025, 05:32:28 PM
If he doesn't want to join sod him, I hope he's just a flash in the Nypan.
It will still feel disappointing, we should have pushed for a cast iron guarantee that he'd sign for us.
Post by: Drummond on June 03, 2025, 06:03:18 PM
If he doesn't want to join sod him, I hope he's just a flash in the Nypan.
It will still feel disappointing, we should have pushed for a cast iron guarantee that he'd sign for us.
And booked his induction whilst we were at it.
Post by: Dave on June 04, 2025, 08:49:15 AM
If Rashford's and Asensio's wages cost us say, £10m for the time we had them and we were paying most of that, presumably we could have structured that deal by paying Man Utd and PSG loan fees of £5m each (or whatever it needed to be to cover the wages), and they just continued paying them as normal? And that would have been far better for us in accounting terms as their wages don't get included on our wage bill.
If we had done it that way (a) it wouldn't have made any difference for Man Utd / PSG (for Man Utd it might even have been better having the cash injection?) (b) it's possible that we did do it that way and it wouldn't really have made any difference to how it was reported? We were still covering their wages, but in a more PSR-friendly way.
So it's quite possible that the massive wages that we added in January, we didn't actually add any extra wages apart from Malen and Garcia?
Post by: Dogtanian on June 04, 2025, 08:53:15 AM
We know the wages ratio for the previous season, and we know that will have included Champions League qualification bonuses which this season won't have. Revenue has increased too, and we know that in the summer we were doing deals specifically to bring the ratio down as it was mentioned as part of the Diaby thinking.
So I think they will have done whatever they could.
Post by: Dave on June 04, 2025, 09:38:45 AM
Well, we don't know that isn't what they did.
I know, that's what I'm saying - unless there's a reason the parent clubs didn't want to do it that way, or there's some accounting reason that I can't think of, why wouldn't we have done it that way?
Meaning the Rashford / Asensio deals perhaps didn't add stupid money to an inflated wage bill and were actually just a few million paid to Man Utd and PSG at the end of January.
Post by: paul_e on June 04, 2025, 09:51:39 AM
Well, we don't know that isn't what they did.
I know, that's what I'm saying - unless there's a reason the parent clubs didn't want to do it that way, or there's some accounting reason that I can't think of, why wouldn't we have done it that way?
Meaning the Rashford / Asensio deals perhaps didn't add stupid money to an inflated wage bill and were actually just a few million paid to Man Utd and PSG at the end of January.
If the parent club is in a similar position to us regarding wages then I doubt they'd be interested but I'm not sure if that applies to any of the signings from January.
EDIT: Also maybe tax related legal issues for Asensio?
Post by: Dogtanian on June 04, 2025, 11:04:18 AM
It would make more sense to my limited mind for the player to remain an employee of his parent club and get paid as normal, but with the loaning club being charged for wages.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 04, 2025, 11:13:15 AM
The obvious way would be for the players club to still process the players payroll and Invoice the loanee for the contribution.Well, we don't know that isn't what they did.
I know, that's what I'm saying - unless there's a reason the parent clubs didn't want to do it that way, or there's some accounting reason that I can't think of, why wouldn't we have done it that way?
Meaning the Rashford / Asensio deals perhaps didn't add stupid money to an inflated wage bill and were actually just a few million paid to Man Utd and PSG at the end of January.
Much easier from and Admin and Tax perspective for everybody.
Post by: LeeS on June 04, 2025, 02:36:43 PM
Post by: LeeS on June 04, 2025, 02:40:41 PM
Post by: Tuscans on June 04, 2025, 06:14:53 PM
@TimesSport
Post by: OCD on June 04, 2025, 06:20:07 PM
🚨 The Premier League has failed in its bid to prevent clubs selling assets to sister companies in order to comply with its Profitability & Sustainability Rules (PSR).
@TimesSport
Open season then.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 04, 2025, 06:23:06 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 04, 2025, 06:36:31 PM
Does that help with wages or is PSR the one that deals with transfer fees?
It helps with PL PSR, but not with UEFA SCR.
Post by: andyh on June 04, 2025, 07:13:24 PM
Post by: Bosco81 on June 04, 2025, 08:23:26 PM
Isn’t the UEFA calculation wages to turnover ratio ? So if you increase your turnover by selling an asset that would help this calculation wouldn’t it ?Does that help with wages or is PSR the one that deals with transfer fees?
It helps with PL PSR, but not with UEFA SCR.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 04, 2025, 08:28:08 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 04, 2025, 08:30:15 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 04, 2025, 08:40:35 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 04, 2025, 08:42:51 PM
The premier league have decided not to ban inter company sales of assets. UEFA have already I think.
Yep, UEFA banned it a few years back.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 04, 2025, 11:03:30 PM
If the Premier League can ban it, surely UEFA can? If not, what's the point of Man City fighting it? Or was that just to try to avoid historical charges rather than trying to fiddle the figures in the future?
UEFA already have. The PL can, but have voted (twice now) not to.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 04, 2025, 11:24:49 PM
Isn’t the UEFA calculation wages to turnover ratio ? So if you increase your turnover by selling an asset that would help this calculation wouldn’t it ?Does that help with wages or is PSR the one that deals with transfer fees?
It helps with PL PSR, but not with UEFA SCR.
UEFA don’t accept it as legit revenue.
Pure guesswork by me here, but maybe the best thing we could do would be to sell a stake in the women’s team (as we’re reportedly thinking of doing) and use it to pay off the deadwood in the squad. That would help next year’s SCR as well then, as long as it’s allowed.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 05, 2025, 01:14:35 AM
Post by: Bosco81 on June 05, 2025, 06:01:53 AM
If you’re writing off players contracts presumably that cost goes against wages, so any cancelling of contracts is a bit pointless for the 24/25 figures, unless which seems unlikely we’ve got some wriggle room.
Post by: Villafirst on June 05, 2025, 06:02:54 AM
Post by: OCD on June 05, 2025, 06:45:50 AM
Post by: ozzjim on June 05, 2025, 07:50:29 AM
I see the farce regarding any decision on Man City's 115 charges is still continuing. Reports in the media saying their current transfer splurge tells you all you need to know....
Man city won't get points and transfer bans until it suits one of the other sky 6. If they'd sorted it this season it might have helped us, Newcastle or Forest, which simply isn't reasonable.
Post by: Rotterdam on June 05, 2025, 08:12:07 AM
Why might Palace get knocked out of Uefa competitions without kicking a ball?
The ownership group at CPFC have a majority share in Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.
Post by: LeeS on June 05, 2025, 08:37:42 AM
Why might Palace get knocked out of Uefa competitions without kicking a ball?
The ownership group at CPFC have a majority share in Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.
It will be a real shame for Palace fans if they get denied. But, on the other hand, we won’t have to get battered by them in the knockout stages. Every cloud…
Post by: ozzjim on June 05, 2025, 09:09:51 AM
Why might Palace get knocked out of Uefa competitions without kicking a ball?
The ownership group at CPFC have a majority share in Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.
It will be a real shame for Palace fans if they get denied. But, on the other hand, we won’t have to get battered by them in the knockout stages. Every cloud…
I imagine Textor will sell a proportion of his shares to the co owners and all will be fine.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 05, 2025, 09:14:50 AM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 05, 2025, 09:15:45 AM
Why might Palace get knocked out of Uefa competitions without kicking a ball?
The ownership group at CPFC have a majority share in Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.
It will be a real shame for Palace fans if they get denied. But, on the other hand, we won’t have to get battered by them in the knockout stages. Every cloud…
I imagine Textor will sell a proportion of his shares to the co owners and all will be fine.
Yes but I don’t think it’s that simple. According to uefa rules he should have done that by March for it not to be an issue.
Post by: ozzjim on June 05, 2025, 09:23:38 AM
The Man City verdict is due imminently. Rumours abound that the verdict will be Everton get docked ten points.
They've spent a fortune since Jan (City) so Everton will get off light with 10 points. Maybe they'll do us and Forest too
Post by: Bosco81 on June 05, 2025, 10:18:52 AM
Not that they’ve got a great deal of saleable assets, Pickford, Braithwaite and then I’m struggling.
Pickford if Emi goes wouldn’t be the worst move, he’s a bit of a nut job but he might have the personality to play for a decent team like us.
Post by: Beard82 on June 05, 2025, 10:33:57 AM
Aston Villa (estimated pre-tax loss limit in 2024-25: £15m)
Villa’s last-day loss at Manchester United was a blow both on and off the field. Hopes of another run in the Champions League were left in tatters, and Villa will have to make do with eking what they can from the Europa League’s much smaller prize pot next season.
Problematically for Unai Emery’s men, UEFA’s financial rules don’t change dependent on which of its three competitions you play in. Villa will therefore have to comply with its squad cost ratio rule even as they generate less in European income; this rule is one Villa are already believed to have breached in 2023-24, when they were in the Conference League, and are in ongoing discussions with UEFA over a financial settlement.
UEFA also imposes lower loss limits on competing clubs, as well as requiring adjustments for any quirky player-swap deals between clubs like several Villa partook in last June, ostensibly to ensure domestic PSR compliance.
If there’s trouble abroad, then there’s plenty at home again, too. Villa have lost £206.2million pre-tax in the past two seasons, the highest deficit in the Premier League in that time. Helpfully, they actually disclose PSR-related costs in their accounts (albeit not the actual calculation), so we’re able to get a better idea for them than most clubs on how much they can deduct in terms of what football’s governing bodies deem ‘good’ costs.
Even with some chunky deductions in their PSR calculation, we project Villa can only lose £15million in 2024-25 and remain in line with Premier League rules.
Big sales of Moussa Diaby and Jhon Duran have helped, as has the £70million in Champions League prize money alongside whatever other income uplifts Villa saw from last season’s run to the quarter-finals, but their position still looks on a knife-edge, not least as they continued to spend in 2024-25 and committed hefty wages to January loanees including Marcus Rashford and Marco Asensio.
Villa will need to be active sellers this month once again.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on June 05, 2025, 10:35:00 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gsoaj7XXQAAolbV?format=jpg&name=small)
https://archive.ph/ycL6l
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 05, 2025, 10:42:54 AM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 05, 2025, 10:46:14 AM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 05, 2025, 11:42:01 AM
PSR allows you to deduct your spend on women's football, youth development, and social work. So the overall loss that gets reported is not the actual loss used for PSR.
In 2021-22 and 2022-23, Villa's accounts reported the spend on the three deductibles, allowing us to actually see the PSR result.
2021-22 Overall Profit/Loss: +£0.36m PSR Profit/Loss: +£20.6m
2022-23 Overall Profit/Loss: -£119.6m PSR Profit/Loss: -£96.7m
Unfortunately, they didn't break those details out in last seasons accounts. But if we assume that the spend on those three areas remained at least the same as the previous season (and in all likelihood, it increased), then the £49m loss becomes a £26.5m loss for PSR.
Add those three together, and our PSR figure for 2021-2024 is -£102.6m... just within the PSR limit.
So using this, we can also predict that for the first two years of the 2022-2025 period, the PSR figure was -£123m. Meaning last season we actually need a PSR profit of around £18m, again assuming that we are still spending at only the 2022-23 levels on the women, academy, and social projects. Again, this is more than likely to have increased.
So, the question is, have we made a profit in 2024-25?
On player trading, I am confident we have made a profit with the deals with have done, taking into account book values and amortisation. We've spent around £180m, typically split across 4-5 years, that will be around £50m on the years accounts. We've sold about £170m, and while Duran and Diaby will still have had significant book value, assuming they were on 5 year deals they will have brought in around £65m profit together.
Turnover wise, we know it will have increased massively. Adidas, Betano, new Trade Nation deal, increase in GA+ and hospitality, CL ticket prices and run, plus the increase in televised revenues.
Our other significant cost is then wages. We won't have paid a CL qualification bonus, and we know we let go Diaby because it got his wages off the book. So do we think wages have increased to such an extent that they have eaten up all of the extra we have made plus all the transfer profit? I don't believe so.
So everything is telling me that we are fine. 8)
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 05, 2025, 11:58:10 AM
You would think that they will have budgeted and were able to do the January deals, which they wouldn’t have if PSR was a problem.
The reduction in revenue from failure to qualify for the CL is going to be restrictive this window.
Post by: OCD on June 05, 2025, 12:35:13 PM
Why might Palace get knocked out of Uefa competitions without kicking a ball?
The ownership group at CPFC have a majority share in Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.
I thought they were getting relegated from League Un because of their finances.
Post by: baddowvillans on June 05, 2025, 01:44:12 PM
Post by: eamonn on June 05, 2025, 01:50:39 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on June 06, 2025, 12:50:03 AM
I am confident we are fine for PSR.
PSR allows you to deduct your spend on women's football, youth development, and social work. So the overall loss that gets reported is not the actual loss used for PSR.
In 2021-22 and 2022-23, Villa's accounts reported the spend on the three deductibles, allowing us to actually see the PSR result.
2021-22 Overall Profit/Loss: +£0.36m PSR Profit/Loss: +£20.6m
2022-23 Overall Profit/Loss: -£119.6m PSR Profit/Loss: -£96.7m
Unfortunately, they didn't break those details out in last seasons accounts. But if we assume that the spend on those three areas remained at least the same as the previous season (and in all likelihood, it increased), then the £49m loss becomes a £26.5m loss for PSR.
Add those three together, and our PSR figure for 2021-2024 is -£102.6m... just within the PSR limit.
So using this, we can also predict that for the first two years of the 2022-2025 period, the PSR figure was -£123m. Meaning last season we actually need a PSR profit of around £18m, again assuming that we are still spending at only the 2022-23 levels on the women, academy, and social projects. Again, this is more than likely to have increased.
So, the question is, have we made a profit in 2024-25?
On player trading, I am confident we have made a profit with the deals with have done, taking into account book values and amortisation. We've spent around £180m, typically split across 4-5 years, that will be around £50m on the years accounts. We've sold about £170m, and while Duran and Diaby will still have had significant book value, assuming they were on 5 year deals they will have brought in around £65m profit together.
Turnover wise, we know it will have increased massively. Adidas, Betano, new Trade Nation deal, increase in GA+ and hospitality, CL ticket prices and run, plus the increase in televised revenues.
Our other significant cost is then wages. We won't have paid a CL qualification bonus, and we know we let go Diaby because it got his wages off the book. So do we think wages have increased to such an extent that they have eaten up all of the extra we have made plus all the transfer profit? I don't believe so.
So everything is telling me that we are fine. 8)
An article I read said there was a £27m limit on the deductibles that are claimed, so we could only have a loss of around £17m this season before deductibles were added to be compliant, so that figure in the Athletic doesn't look miles off.
I'm sure there is a lot of guesswork involved in these articles and am confident that the club will have their house in order.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 06, 2025, 09:47:35 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on June 06, 2025, 09:57:43 AM
The Athletic
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gsoaj7XXQAAolbV?format=jpg&name=small)
https://archive.ph/ycL6l
That Chelsea and Man City appear at the top of that chart shows how bent it is
Post by: OCD on June 06, 2025, 11:19:36 AM
Post by: Gareth on June 06, 2025, 12:14:18 PM
The Athletic
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gsoaj7XXQAAolbV?format=jpg&name=small)
https://archive.ph/ycL6l
The Chelsea and Man City appear at the top of that chart shows how bent it is
The worry with that picture is you need 5/6 teams in the ‘at risk’ to get a marketplace going - when you are nominally the only one other teams will all try and be Daniel levy and bid ridiculously low. Hopefully the reality is that we have a few partners in crime to do our deals to fix the books.
Reality though is absolutely no one outside of the Premier League financial offices and the football club have access to all the numbers or the justifications for those numbers so that table amongst all other ‘experts’ opinions is built on some public domain info plus assumptions and guesswork. Dealings in next 3 weeks will make the PSR clearer but there will always be another looming financial deadline to keep the likes of Kieran Maguire gainfully employed:-)
I don’t like the constant trading of players, feels like we will see less and less ‘career players’ spending majority of careers in one place…think that’s why as much as I love watching this team I have no real affinity to most of them, in fact only really McGinn, Mings & JJ because they were around in Championship. When think back to Platt, Yorke, Barry, Young even Grealish going was gutted…now if they sell Emi and Rogers tomorrow it would be ‘a shame but there will be a replacement next week’
Post by: Ads on June 06, 2025, 12:20:38 PM
Post by: ozzjim on June 06, 2025, 12:24:02 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
Which is the common sense move to make. Isn't there a calculation that the women's team, based on Chelsea, is £108m. Need to build a couple of hotels in Dubai and sell them too like Chelsea are.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 06, 2025, 12:34:42 PM
The worry with that picture is you need 5/6 teams in the ‘at risk’ to get a marketplace going - when you are nominally the only one other teams will all try and be Daniel levy and bid ridiculously low. Hopefully the reality is that we have a few partners in crime to do our deals to fix the books.
You are right, it's bad thing when you are the one who everyone knows is in the shit and people can take advantage. But I think we are past that problem.
To comply with PSR, 2024-25 has to be a good year for the books. As I posted above, I think it needs to be an £18m ish PSR profit to comply.
With that, our £119m loss season in 2022-23 drops off the books. Leaving us two years into the next 3 year period with a PSR loss of only £8m...
That, along with our revenue increases, is going to take the pressure off us for next season and going forward. As with the revenue increases realised and planned, we shouldn't have to have £100m+ loss seasons again.
Post by: Drummond on June 06, 2025, 12:43:15 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
We sell Bailey and it'll be fine. Keep our powder dry on the others until we really need to.
Post by: PeterWithe on June 07, 2025, 12:59:41 PM
Post by: LeonW on June 07, 2025, 07:29:23 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
Have the premier league not already just closed that loop hole on selling women’s teams for PSR purposes?
Post by: Clampy on June 07, 2025, 07:31:27 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
Have the premier league not already just closed that loop hole on selling women’s teams for PSR purposes?
I think Chelsea have been cleared to do it haven't they?
Post by: Somniloquism on June 07, 2025, 07:32:17 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
Have the premier league not already just closed that loop hole on selling women’s teams for PSR purposes?
No. Premier League allows it. UEFA don't so it won't help us with the wages to revenue calculations for those competitions.
Post by: LeonW on June 07, 2025, 07:33:16 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
Have the premier league not already just closed that loop hole on selling women’s teams for PSR purposes?
I think Chelsea have been cleared to do it haven't they?
I thought that they’d already done it and that others were looking to follow suit. The premier league saw Chelsea doing another ‘clever’ move and then have now closed the door on others doing the same.
Post by: LeonW on June 07, 2025, 07:34:08 PM
We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.
Have the premier league not already just closed that loop hole on selling women’s teams for PSR purposes?
No. Premier League allows it. UEFA don't so it won't help us with the wages to revenue calculations for those competitions.
Sorry then; I must have misunderstood. So many bloody different rules to try and follow.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 07, 2025, 08:30:47 PM
Post by: algy on June 07, 2025, 09:14:53 PM
Presumably Everton have got until the end of the month to try and sort it.My Evertonian mate rates Pickford very, very highly indeed.
Not that they’ve got a great deal of saleable assets, Pickford, Braithwaite and then I’m struggling.
Pickford if Emi goes wouldn’t be the worst move, he’s a bit of a nut job but he might have the personality to play for a decent team like us.
Post by: paul_e on June 07, 2025, 09:51:28 PM
Presumably Everton have got until the end of the month to try and sort it.My Evertonian mate rates Pickford very, very highly indeed.
Not that they’ve got a great deal of saleable assets, Pickford, Braithwaite and then I’m struggling.
Pickford if Emi goes wouldn’t be the worst move, he’s a bit of a nut job but he might have the personality to play for a decent team like us.
Pickford has a very strong case for being the best keeper in the league last season.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 07, 2025, 10:41:41 PM
There was a vote on it last week and it failed to get through so it’s still allowed.
They didn’t even bother with the vote in the end. There was no support for it.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2025, 02:28:06 PM
Post by: DB on June 11, 2025, 02:53:21 PM
There really isn’t any fair play anymore. This is a good listen regarding PSR with Stefan Borson
Interesting. We keep getting mentioned as a club who is potentially up against it.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 11, 2025, 03:00:18 PM
Post by: Mister E on June 11, 2025, 03:02:52 PM
There really isn’t any fair play anymore. This is a good listen regarding PSR with Stefan BorsonThx for posting TV; useful. I haven't seen Borson before: he seems credible (he's a cross between MON and Martin Freeman).
There was a contradiction in what he said: on the one hand he said that PSR is dead; on the other, he said that Villa were in for a 'meaningful' PSR exposure. He also talks about Villa having invested heavily last season without acknowledging the outgoings that we benefited from.
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2025, 03:06:02 PM
So are we up against it or not? I cannot listen to that currently.
We lost £49m in 23-24, down from £119m in 22-23. To comply with PSR, 24-25 needs to be about break even.
We’ve made a profit on transfers in 24-25, and we have Champions League money, Adidas money, the extra gate receipts on the CL games and price increases, plus the GA+ increases.
So unless wages have been allowed to go up by a £100m or so, no I don‘t think we are up against it.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2025, 03:12:00 PM
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 11, 2025, 03:35:26 PM
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2025, 03:40:40 PM
There really isn’t any fair play anymore. This is a good listen regarding PSR with Stefan Borson
Misses out the £70m for Duran.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2025, 03:43:23 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2025, 03:44:24 PM
There really isn’t any fair play anymore. This is a good listen regarding PSR with Stefan Borson
Misses out the £70m for Duran.
Wouldn’t the current numbers that show our predicament include that? Or would Duran fall into next years accounting?
Post by: john2710 on June 11, 2025, 03:46:04 PM
Post by: Monty on June 11, 2025, 03:46:49 PM
The original intent of you decide to believe it was to ensure clubs spent within their means. And not go broke or almost by being stupid like Leeds, Portsmouth etc. The other intent, a more skeptical view is that at the top end it allowed PL to protect its interests and not have their “big 6” breakaway into a Super league, which then goes to the same “intent” at UEFA. I don’t know that either fully expected the gap to become this big and more importantly that it stopped new clubs breaking in. Almost literally.
As ever, if you're poor debt makes you poor; if you're rich debt makes you rich.
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 11, 2025, 03:47:23 PM
The original intent of you decide to believe it was to ensure clubs spent within their means. And not go broke or almost by being stupid like Leeds, Portsmouth etc. The other intent, a more skeptical view is that at the top end it allowed PL to protect its interests and not have their “big 6” breakaway into a Super league, which then goes to the same “intent” at UEFA. I don’t know that either fully expected the gap to become this big and more importantly that it stopped new clubs breaking in. Almost literally.
I don’t believe the original intent. I believe it was entirely the latter.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 11, 2025, 03:54:50 PM
Post by: Crown Hill on June 11, 2025, 04:01:26 PM
When I first listened to him he seemed plausible, articulate and knowledgeable but having listened to him for some time now his insight is no greater than anybody else and his predictions are usually wrong.
Post by: Rotterdam on June 11, 2025, 04:51:03 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2025, 05:05:23 PM
Sky Sports has a piece from Kieran McGuire highlighting us as the club with PSR issues.
::)
Post by: Ads on June 11, 2025, 05:15:49 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 11, 2025, 05:20:26 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 11, 2025, 05:22:17 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2025, 05:28:07 PM
You do have to supply your own calculator, though!
Just remember, there are more clicks in scaremongering than there are in supplying actual facts and reason.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 11, 2025, 05:38:35 PM
Post by: Dogtanian on June 11, 2025, 05:39:29 PM
Post by: Villatillidie25 on June 11, 2025, 05:43:29 PM
The original intent of you decide to believe it was to ensure clubs spent within their means. And not go broke or almost by being stupid like Leeds, Portsmouth etc. The other intent, a more skeptical view is that at the top end it allowed PL to protect its interests and not have their “big 6” breakaway into a Super league, which then goes to the same “intent” at UEFA. I don’t know that either fully expected the gap to become this big and more importantly that it stopped new clubs breaking in. Almost literally.
I don’t believe the original intent. I believe it was entirely the latter.
And what was the rationale for the other 14 clubs signing up to it? Or are the Big 6 just smarter and sneakier than everyone else and tricked all the other billionaire owners into thinking it was for financial prudence when it was actually to create a financial locked shop?
Post by: DB on June 11, 2025, 07:16:54 PM
The original intent of you decide to believe it was to ensure clubs spent within their means. And not go broke or almost by being stupid like Leeds, Portsmouth etc. The other intent, a more skeptical view is that at the top end it allowed PL to protect its interests and not have their “big 6” breakaway into a Super league, which then goes to the same “intent” at UEFA. I don’t know that either fully expected the gap to become this big and more importantly that it stopped new clubs breaking in. Almost literally.
I don’t believe the original intent. I believe it was entirely the latter.
And what was the rationale for the other 14 clubs signing up to it? Or are the Big 6 just smarter and sneakier than everyone else and tricked all the other billionaire owners into thinking it was for financial prudence when it was actually to create a financial locked shop?
I think they were worried that Newcastle with all their potential wealth would just walk over every other club and win everything, paying ridiculous prices for players.
Post by: Olneythelonely on June 11, 2025, 08:22:38 PM
The original intent of you decide to believe it was to ensure clubs spent within their means. And not go broke or almost by being stupid like Leeds, Portsmouth etc. The other intent, a more skeptical view is that at the top end it allowed PL to protect its interests and not have their “big 6” breakaway into a Super league, which then goes to the same “intent” at UEFA. I don’t know that either fully expected the gap to become this big and more importantly that it stopped new clubs breaking in. Almost literally.
I don’t believe the original intent. I believe it was entirely the latter.
And what was the rationale for the other 14 clubs signing up to it? Or are the Big 6 just smarter and sneakier than everyone else and tricked all the other billionaire owners into thinking it was for financial prudence when it was actually to create a financial locked shop?
For a starter, only 14 have to agree. Doesn’t have to be agreed by all 20 clubs and wasn’t. Some wanted to retain powerful position. Some didn’t want another 3/4 clubs joining them. Then there is us, Newcastle, Forest etc.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 11, 2025, 08:51:30 PM
I think what actually happened is that it started with trying to restrict financial prolificacy but ended up as something entirely different.
Sometimes unintended consequences can become exploited and embedded.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 11, 2025, 09:45:38 PM
Post by: eamonn on June 12, 2025, 09:02:46 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 12, 2025, 10:52:09 AM
Who, Spud-man in Tamworth? He knows eff-all about the Villa and football finances :(
No, definitely not.
Post by: Ads on June 12, 2025, 11:26:07 AM
Perception based analysis. Always my favourite type of guesswork.
It's because our wage/income was 91%- never mind that income has dramatically increased.
It's because we spent so much in the past. Never mind our net spend since 2022 is £82m.
They can fuck off.
Post by: Villa in Denmark on June 12, 2025, 11:54:16 AM
Just seen the SSN clip.
Perception based analysis. Always my favourite type of guesswork.
It's because our wage/income was 91%- never mind that income has dramatically increased.
It's because we spent so much in the past. Never mind our net spend since 2022 is £82m.
They can fuck off.
From memory a decent attitude towards all of Sky in general
Post by: Paul.S on June 12, 2025, 04:15:53 PM
Just seen the SSN clip.
Perception based analysis. Always my favourite type of guesswork.
It's because our wage/income was 91%- never mind that income has dramatically increased.
It's because we spent so much in the past. Never mind our net spend since 2022 is £82m.
They can fuck off.
The day they lose the football will fill me with joy.
I stopped paying for it a while ago because I’m not interested in the constant rolling news of the same few clubs. It’s exactly the same with talkshite.
Post by: IFWaters on June 13, 2025, 07:05:00 AM
Talkshite is owned by Sky.Just seen the SSN clip.
Perception based analysis. Always my favourite type of guesswork.
It's because our wage/income was 91%- never mind that income has dramatically increased.
It's because we spent so much in the past. Never mind our net spend since 2022 is £82m.
They can fuck off.
The day they lose the football will fill me with joy.
I stopped paying for it a while ago because I’m not interested in the constant rolling news of the same few clubs. It’s exactly the same with talkshite.
Post by: Rigadon on June 13, 2025, 08:22:57 AM
Post by: Lsvilla on June 13, 2025, 09:28:16 AM
I’ve got no idea why anybody would tolerate listening to talksport. It’s the radio equivalent of the Daily Star.I like Max and Barry on a Sunday morning. And there was the clip years ago of Parry and Brazil where one of them (can't remember which) asked about the health of someone who had been dead several months. Other than that - absolute garbage.
Post by: Kevin Dawson on June 13, 2025, 09:48:32 AM
I’ve got no idea why anybody would tolerate listening to talksport. It’s the radio equivalent of the Daily Star.I like Max and Barry on a Sunday morning. And there was the clip years ago of Parry and Brazil where one of them (can't remember which) asked about the health of someone who had been dead several months. Other than that - absolute garbage.
Bob Monkhouse
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 13, 2025, 10:13:59 AM
Post by: Nev on June 13, 2025, 10:15:18 AM
To be fair, the Sat afternoon around the grounds is listenable and better than 5Live who are usually at Old Trafford by default for a meaningless PL game.
Other than that it's tripe.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 13, 2025, 10:29:05 AM
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 13, 2025, 10:30:01 AM
What's the station that used to go "DUR NUR NUR NUR DUR NUR NUR NUR... IT'S A GOAL!" and do they still do it?
WM and no idea.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 13, 2025, 10:48:20 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 13, 2025, 10:53:33 AM
Post by: Duncan Shaw on June 13, 2025, 10:56:55 AM
Stadium renaming rights rumours abound. Fortress Villa Park?I know it's unpalatable to us, but in this current straightjacket/set of "rules" I think it's inevitable that we are going to have to do it. It's relatively easy money to bring into the club. Worth £100million of anyone's money!
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 13, 2025, 11:00:46 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 13, 2025, 11:00:48 AM
Stadium renaming rights rumours abound. Fortress Villa Park?
Knighthead Villa Park. Sadly that's where we're at in Brum's pecking order these days.
Post by: LeeS on June 13, 2025, 11:01:40 AM
What's the station that used to go "DUR NUR NUR NUR DUR NUR NUR NUR... IT'S A GOAL!" and do they still do it?
WM and no idea.
I used to love that. Now I live in London I don’t listen to WM.
Post by: Ads on June 13, 2025, 11:06:37 AM
Post by: Mister E on June 13, 2025, 11:10:40 AM
Fortress Villa Park would be an excellent name, especially for £100m season.Agreed - chimes with how Emery was describing our home form last season.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 13, 2025, 11:29:59 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on June 13, 2025, 11:35:23 AM
Thanks. Must have been years since I listened to that. Was always a very nerve-wracking few seconds worrying if Villa had scored or conceded before finding out that Walsall had just gone behind.
Living within conditional-atmospheric earshot of Villa Park meant we could hear the cheer 5 seconds before "DUR NUR NUR NUR.....". I think BRMB used to play a song associated with the club if one of the local teams scored. KRO for them and I think for awhile we had Jerusalem, maybe from SGT himself.
Post by: Crown Hill on June 13, 2025, 11:47:24 AM
Do we (the clubs company) "own" the ground to be able to get money from renaming it?
Presumably we lease it at a peppercorn rent which means yes we do.
Post by: Crown Hill on June 13, 2025, 11:49:00 AM
Thanks. Must have been years since I listened to that. Was always a very nerve-wracking few seconds worrying if Villa had scored or conceded before finding out that Walsall had just gone behind.
Living within conditional-atmospheric earshot of Villa Park meant we could hear the cheer 5 seconds before "DUR NUR NUR NUR.....". I think BRMB used to play a song associated with the club if one of the local teams scored. KRO for them and I think for awhile we had Jerusalem, maybe from SGT himself.
George Gavin era which was a pastiche of Tony Butler!
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 13, 2025, 12:02:43 PM
Is was SGT singing Jerusalem.Thanks. Must have been years since I listened to that. Was always a very nerve-wracking few seconds worrying if Villa had scored or conceded before finding out that Walsall had just gone behind.
Living within conditional-atmospheric earshot of Villa Park meant we could hear the cheer 5 seconds before "DUR NUR NUR NUR.....". I think BRMB used to play a song associated with the club if one of the local teams scored. KRO for them and I think for awhile we had Jerusalem, maybe from SGT himself.
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 13, 2025, 08:21:36 PM
Post by: Mister E on June 13, 2025, 09:56:45 PM
Interesting take on Villa's PSR situation particularly early on in this.Can you summarise the key points?
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 13, 2025, 10:07:50 PM
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 13, 2025, 10:09:09 PM
He's heard from someone inside the club that the PSR near-breach stuff in the media is basically bollocks.Interesting take on Villa's PSR situation particularly early on in this.Can you summarise the key points?
EDIT: He sums it up with this.
https://x.com/Holy_Trinity_AV/status/1933577625810972748?t=dwTFSHlrkgEnuEmK5a3j6g&s=19
Post by: edgysatsuma89 on June 14, 2025, 12:19:08 AM
He's heard from someone inside the club that the PSR near-breach stuff in the media is basically bollocks.Interesting take on Villa's PSR situation particularly early on in this.Can you summarise the key points?
EDIT: He sums it up with this.
https://x.com/Holy_Trinity_AV/status/1933577625810972748?t=dwTFSHlrkgEnuEmK5a3j6g&s=19
Pretty much what Vinnie said a couple of weeks back that sales won't necessarily be because of PSR but more that it is about Emery wanting to refresh the squad.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 14, 2025, 12:37:28 AM
He’s had a text from a major club insider to say everyone and he means everyone has got it wrong on our PSR situation and we are weighing up who has reached their peak in terms of the right time to sell. Hence senior player rumours.
It’s far from ‘everyone’ though. Most of the ‘they’re fucked’ stuff is from one or two click-hunting journos with stories amplified by fans of other clubs who wish it were true and gullible Villa fans.
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 14, 2025, 01:03:54 AM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 14, 2025, 01:10:06 AM
Who would be a major club insider? One of the directors? Monchi? The new Heck? Which senior employee at a major Premier League club is going to be sharing stuff like that with a bloke on YouTube?
He’s probably just worked it out from the accounts. They’re available to anyone who can be arsed.
The wage bill probably hasn’t gone up and we added £90m revenue. There you go.
Post by: Rory on June 14, 2025, 01:28:43 AM
Who would be a major club insider? One of the directors? Monchi? The new Heck? Which senior employee at a major Premier League club is going to be sharing stuff like that with a bloke on YouTube?
I reckon it's you, Dave, and you're bluffing us. Selling secrets all over the show to keep that private jet of yours stocked with champagne.
Post by: AV82EC on June 14, 2025, 07:16:48 AM
Who would be a major club insider? One of the directors? Monchi? The new Heck? Which senior employee at a major Premier League club is going to be sharing stuff like that with a bloke on YouTube?
He’s probably just worked it out from the accounts. They’re available to anyone who can be arsed.
The wage bill probably hasn’t gone up and we added £90m revenue. There you go.
Yep it’s not exactly rocket science is it. I’ve nothing against Pete Schaad in particular he seems a reasonable bloke but shoving out this type of bullshit to the gullible masses on YT isn’t exactly doing his own YT brand any favours imv it just makes him look like a whole army of other self important media and internet bullshitters who claim some kind of inside track. Quite frankly it’s a bit, well, TBAR and biscuits isn’t it.
Post by: Crown Hill on June 14, 2025, 11:26:49 AM
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 01:29:01 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 14, 2025, 01:30:54 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 14, 2025, 01:32:17 PM
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 01:34:26 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 14, 2025, 01:37:56 PM
Post by: OCD on June 14, 2025, 01:44:42 PM
Sorry Stu. Didn’t mean to come across as an arse. I think of all the so called sky six only Chelsea’s antics can be genuinely called into question.
And Man City's.
Post by: Drummond on June 14, 2025, 01:45:59 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 14, 2025, 01:57:04 PM
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 02:00:44 PM
Sorry Stu. Didn’t mean to come across as an arse. I think of all the so called sky six only Chelsea’s antics can be genuinely called into question.
No worries mate, I was being a big miseryarse - apologies!
Post by: paul_e on June 14, 2025, 02:02:07 PM
Spurs (stadium debt notwithstanding) and Arsenal are miles ahead of the rest in terms of how well run they are as businesses.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 14, 2025, 02:08:47 PM
Not on strict psr these days no. On their historic boosting of sponsorship deals yes.i think if you look at the charges you will find multiple financial breaches including sheltering renumeration through UAE.
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 02:16:14 PM
Sorry Stu. Didn’t mean to come across as an arse. I think of all the so called sky six only Chelsea’s antics can be genuinely called into question.
Ohhhh, I see where you’re coming from. I don’t think Liverpool have or are doing anything dodgy financially (as per PSR). What I mean is that the game is rigged against clubs who weren’t as successful in the past, so Liverpool in this example are essentially being rewarded for being really good at passing the ball back to the keeper for 20 years while not having their spending restricted.
Tbh, I don’t really blame clubs trying to find loopholes and workarounds either, these are the consequences of ill-conceived legislation. See also the affront to the sport itself whereby clubs who are locked out of spending to compete are incentivised to sell their homegrown players.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 14, 2025, 03:21:37 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 14, 2025, 03:29:14 PM
We’ve qualified for Europe three years running and got to the last eight of the Champions League, and finished seventh, fourth and sixth in the richest league in the world despite the unfairness and corruption. We are the biggest club in the second biggest city (for now lol) in the richest football economy on the planet, with no clubs of comparable wealth within an eighty mile radius. It can’t be that impossible.
Post by: ozzjim on June 14, 2025, 03:33:58 PM
I think there should be a mechanism which either flat allows all clubs to spend the same on fees and wages each season in the prem, OR, a mechanism where owners can spend to invest and improve to bring a club to that level. Chelsea and Man City were the beneficiary of pumping funds in when there were no rules. It's unfair to not have a method to join them.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 14, 2025, 03:52:22 PM
The method is clever recruitment/sales, an outstanding coach and increasing revenue.
Post by: Mister E on June 14, 2025, 04:44:40 PM
I think the unfairness for me comes in the lack of any ability to bridge the gap.The main answer is simple ... but difficult and time-dependent: build the top line, which is the task Heck started and helped by the team doing well in Europe.
I think there should be a mechanism which either flat allows all clubs to spend the same on fees and wages each season in the prem, OR, a mechanism where owners can spend to invest and improve to bring a club to that level. Chelsea and Man City were the beneficiary of pumping funds in when there were no rules. It's unfair to not have a method to join them.
Sad to say, it's going to take time.
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 04:55:48 PM
Chelsea and Man City were the beneficiary of pumping funds in when there were no rules. It's unfair to not have a method to join them.
This is the crux of the matter for me and it isn't limited to those two clubs either. It is literally the case that clubs who gambled on success and achieved it are now at liberty to spend whatever they want whereas those who didn't/couldn't gamble for whatever reason, are now locked out of the opportunity to do the same when circumstances have changed. Still being rewarded for a bet they made decades ago is antithetical to competition in the context of competitive sport when others do not have the same opportunity.
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 04:57:29 PM
There’s not a lack of ‘any’ ability. If we’d had Emery and the Joe money straight after Deano we’d be even more competitive than we are now. If we can shed the Coutinho, Bailey, Buendia and Dendonker wages and spend £400,000 a week more wisely we’d be even more competitive than we are now.
The method is clever recruitment/sales, an outstanding coach and increasing revenue.
I suppose it goes without saying that my objection to all of this is that it shouldn't be this way at all.
Post by: algy on June 14, 2025, 05:19:30 PM
Well, we can give up or we can try. We can sustain a quarter of a billion pound-a-year wage bill that we can spend on 25 first team players, same as everyone else. We can spend unlimited money on our academy to develop first team players and/or revenue. We can recruit as well as Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth and be under less pressure than any of those clubs to sell. We can expand our stadium and we can improve our commercial department as many have been saying for years that we should. We’re richer than all but a handful of clubs in Europe and can afford to cherry pick the best players from the rest. There are loopholes we are still to exploit.Agree with everything, except the second biggest city thing. Birmingham is the largest city in the UK (by population).
We’ve qualified for Europe three years running and got to the last eight of the Champions League, and finished seventh, fourth and sixth in the richest league in the world despite the unfairness and corruption. We are the biggest club in the second biggest city (for now lol) in the richest football economy on the planet, with no clubs of comparable wealth within an eighty mile radius. It can’t be that impossible.
Edit: source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom - sort by population
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 14, 2025, 05:20:20 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 14, 2025, 05:24:13 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 14, 2025, 05:37:47 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 14, 2025, 05:39:47 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 14, 2025, 05:40:42 PM
But nobody is referring to the City of London when they think or talk about London.
Just because lots of people are wrong doesn't mean they're not wrong.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 14, 2025, 05:41:08 PM
Nope, and Birmingham is the second city. No shame in that, but it is.
There isn't any shame in it. Well done, Leeds. We are first, though.
Post by: Monty on June 14, 2025, 05:43:00 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 14, 2025, 06:45:42 PM
This is the most futile thing I've ever seen. It's like Passchendaele.
Well, according to some, it’s not as futile as poor old Villa trying to finish higher in the league than Spurs and Man Utd.
Oh.
Post by: ozzjim on June 14, 2025, 07:02:14 PM
All clubs have a degree of players who are on big wages that they don't use. I do think that our recruitment needs to evolve in the next few windows to include more Duran types that can supplement the squad with high potential selling on fees to keep helping the situation. PSR wise those signings are what have kept Chelsea andan City above a line (along with loop holes etc)
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 14, 2025, 08:43:31 PM
Post by: Stu on June 14, 2025, 09:13:54 PM
Football teams have risen and fallen throughout the history of the game. FFP has not prevented numerous clubs from going under from Bury to Brescia. The real issue is poor ownership, this is the key aspect on the success or otherwise of any football club. Effective controls need to be put in place to counter poor owners.
Post by: algy on June 14, 2025, 09:38:45 PM
Fully agree. You can't argue with facts. Birmingham is the biggest city.But nobody is referring to the City of London when they think or talk about London.
Just because lots of people are wrong doesn't mean they're not wrong.
Post by: ozzjim on June 14, 2025, 11:11:56 PM
So, if we (and the other two clubs who would want it) successfully campaign for the PL to allow such a mechanism, do we then turn our fire on UEFA’s SCR, which is partly in place to placate the Super League wankers, and partly to placate the fan-owned clubs in Germany? Or do we compete strongly at the top of the PL and take our inevitable ban from Europe on the chin?
This isn't a black and white choice is it. The 70% rule continues to stack the deck to super league clubs, but being able to spend more and being successful is the fastest route to growing that income. The stadium is the other. I'm my opinion we've not been ambitious enough with the stadium, or haven't seen the final destination with that yet, but either way, success brings money.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 15, 2025, 07:11:21 AM
Post by: Rigadon on June 15, 2025, 07:31:23 AM
The turning point could be the outcome of the Man City thing.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 15, 2025, 08:22:21 AM
Post by: ozzjim on June 15, 2025, 08:59:09 AM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 15, 2025, 10:39:19 AM
Post by: OCD on June 15, 2025, 12:15:51 PM
Post by: VinnieChase84 on June 18, 2025, 07:07:32 PM
For example. Everyone in the league is allowed to spend 80% of whatever last seasons maximum revenue was if they so wished to
Gives the leader the reward but ultimately allows others to stay within realm if they wish to
Then it’s down to how much does anyone else want it.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 18, 2025, 08:17:02 PM
Some degree of financial control is required - if it went away tomorrow, we'd have years of Newcastle fighting Man City for silverware. I am not sure how that's any better than what we have now. But then again, the implementation of it as it is now makes it very difficult for clubs like us - and Newcastle - to break into the elite.
FWIW, I don't think we're near breaking through, that's the bit of Percy's post I don't agree with.
So what is the answer? I don't know that, but I do know that it isn't what we currently have.
Post by: Beard82 on June 18, 2025, 08:30:56 PM
FFP is like VAR - it isn't the concept itself which is flawed, it is the interpretation and execution of it.This, is exactly the problem. Why do they implement massively complex solutions that dont solve the problem or even the symptoms and reduce enjoyment for everyone.
Its literally like saying to your boss - is it possible to have Friday off - and they say "Even better than that - your fired" or some other, better analogy
Post by: Drummond on June 18, 2025, 11:07:33 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 19, 2025, 05:26:57 AM
Salary Cap is the way.Yes, agree.
If they are genuinely concerned with financial governance then a Balance Sheet covenant would be prudent based on how Financial excess has been managed by Financial Institutions for decades.
Post by: Meanwood Villa on June 19, 2025, 06:10:43 AM
This is easily resolved. Just go back to being bang average every year.
We used to dream of bang average in the 2010s
Post by: tomd2103 on June 19, 2025, 04:31:24 PM
Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 19, 2025, 04:37:45 PM
Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
It is supposed to stop the clubs being loaded with debt like Portsmouth ended up with , Manchester United take a bow
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 19, 2025, 04:39:48 PM
Yes if that is the sole objective, you move to a Balance Sheet restriction but that would mean that the richest would win.Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 19, 2025, 04:42:01 PM
Post by: Lsvilla on June 19, 2025, 04:42:53 PM
This is the thing. A revenue-based test is flawed without being backed up by a balance sheet test. We don't have a huge debt pile and owners that are happy to put their money in as equity rather than gearing up the business like the glazers did. It needs both to stop the state-owned clubs just running amok and then a global salary cap too would be really effective.Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
It is supposed to stop the clubs being loaded with debt like Portsmouth ended up with , Manchester United take a bow
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 19, 2025, 04:45:16 PM
This is the thing. A revenue-based test is flawed without being backed up by a balance sheet test. We don't have a huge debt pile and owners that are happy to put their money in as equity rather than gearing up the business like the glazers did. It needs both to stop the state-owned clubs just running amok and then a global salary cap too would be really effective.Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
It is supposed to stop the clubs being loaded with debt like Portsmouth ended up with , Manchester United take a bow
Also more restrictions on players you can own . stop clubs having 40 odd players on loan like Chelsea
Post by: Lsvilla on June 19, 2025, 04:47:10 PM
Yep. Absolutely. Max number of loans or max squad size or however. But agree also needs addressing to stop stockpiling. As someone pointed out on another thread look at C115's bench last night. They've just bought Nypan to stop anyone else having him like they did with Grealish and Phillips. Chelsea just buy players like cattle.This is the thing. A revenue-based test is flawed without being backed up by a balance sheet test. We don't have a huge debt pile and owners that are happy to put their money in as equity rather than gearing up the business like the glazers did. It needs both to stop the state-owned clubs just running amok and then a global salary cap too would be really effective.Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
It is supposed to stop the clubs being loaded with debt like Portsmouth ended up with , Manchester United take a bow
Also more restrictions on players you can own . stop clubs having 40 odd players on loan like Chelsea
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 19, 2025, 04:56:27 PM
Yep. Absolutely. Max number of loans or max squad size or however. But agree also needs addressing to stop stockpiling. As someone pointed out on another thread look at C115's bench last night. They've just bought Nypan to stop anyone else having him like they did with Grealish and Phillips. Chelsea just buy players like cattle.This is the thing. A revenue-based test is flawed without being backed up by a balance sheet test. We don't have a huge debt pile and owners that are happy to put their money in as equity rather than gearing up the business like the glazers did. It needs both to stop the state-owned clubs just running amok and then a global salary cap too would be really effective.Salary Cap is the way.
Unless it is a worldwide one imposed by FIFA then I can't see that working. If just the Premier League imposed one or even just UEFA, the Saudi league amongst others would just start hoovering up players.
If the idea behind the financial.restrictions is to stop clubs from bankrupting themselves, then surely there are better checks that could be implemented?
It is supposed to stop the clubs being loaded with debt like Portsmouth ended up with , Manchester United take a bow
Also more restrictions on players you can own . stop clubs having 40 odd players on loan like Chelsea
ooooh if we ran FIFA !!!
Post by: Drummond on June 19, 2025, 05:13:07 PM
Post by: andyh on June 19, 2025, 05:16:55 PM
Salary Cap is the way.Would that cause players and agents to play the ‘restricting my trade’ card in much the same way Bosman did, which essentially started this whole thing in the first place ?
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 19, 2025, 05:18:54 PM
Of course FIFA being beholden to Saudi (see World Cup and club World Cup) means they won't do anything the Saudis won't want them to.
Yes it is good how the football family has really cleaned its act up
Post by: VILLA MOLE on June 19, 2025, 05:21:15 PM
Post by: Drummond on June 19, 2025, 05:24:19 PM
Salary Cap is the way.Would that cause players and agents to play the ‘restricting my trade’ card in much the same way Bosman did, which essentially started this whole thing in the first place ?
No restriction on individual salaries.
Post by: Rigadon on June 19, 2025, 06:19:46 PM
This is easily resolved. Just go back to being bang average every year.
We used to dream of bang average in the 2010s
I take your point, but I can't ever remember dreaming of being average personally. I remember wishing we weren't so abject at times, but mediocrity has never appealed.
Post by: paul_e on June 20, 2025, 09:09:29 AM
Maybe something where everyone can spend the same percentage amount that the highest turnover club produces from the previous year ?
I wouldn't base it on the highest, just use a league wide average as the base. So, for example, 2x the league average on wages is the absolute limit and any club that is over that can't register new players until they get under the cap.
Post by: Beard82 on June 20, 2025, 09:17:59 AM
We dont want Stateback free spending - so some form of upper limit
We dont want clubs with massive debts as that makes them vunerable - so some form discouragement against that
We dont want clubes spending unsutainably as that makes them vunerable - so something that stops them from doing that
But we want to be able to support clubs who are showing growth beyond there revenue - maybe allowing clubs in europe to spend more
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 20, 2025, 09:25:37 AM
The more restrictions UEFA try to enforce the more likely a split.
The action/ n action regarding C11560Y is a likely catalyst.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 20, 2025, 09:30:30 AM
It probably needs to be a mixture of measures to cover 2 or 3 different areas.
We dont want Stateback free spending - so some form of upper limit
We dont want clubs with massive debts as that makes them vunerable - so some form discouragement against that
We dont want clubes spending unsutainably as that makes them vunerable - so something that stops them from doing that
But we want to be able to support clubs who are showing growth beyond there revenue - maybe allowing clubs in europe to spend more
I don't want to come across all Norman Tebbit on this, but there has to be a degree of personal responsibility. We can't regulate away the concept of risk - if clubs behave in reckless ways, there are consequences for that (not necessarily bad ones if they get lucky).
Premier League football is a grotesquely capitalist enterprise. That means people/clubs will fail. It's sort of the point.
Post by: LeeB on June 20, 2025, 09:32:01 AM
At some point there will be a breakaway and my bet would be the Saudis doing what they have with Golf.
The more restrictions UEFA try to enforce the more likely a split.
The action/ n action regarding C11560Y is a likely catalyst.
This Club World Cup bollocks is the start of it, it's totally funded by the Saudis.
Post by: Beard82 on June 20, 2025, 09:35:15 AM
But isnt the idea that these are community assests so we shouldnt let them fail.It probably needs to be a mixture of measures to cover 2 or 3 different areas.
We dont want Stateback free spending - so some form of upper limit
We dont want clubs with massive debts as that makes them vunerable - so some form discouragement against that
We dont want clubes spending unsutainably as that makes them vunerable - so something that stops them from doing that
But we want to be able to support clubs who are showing growth beyond there revenue - maybe allowing clubs in europe to spend more
I don't want to come across all Norman Tebbit on this, but there has to be a degree of personal responsibility. We can't regulate away the concept of risk - if clubs behave in reckless ways, there are consequences for that (not necessarily bad ones if they get lucky).
Premier League football is a grotesquely capitalist enterprise. That means people/clubs will fail. It's sort of the point.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 20, 2025, 09:41:45 AM
But isnt the idea that these are community assests so we shouldnt let them fail.It probably needs to be a mixture of measures to cover 2 or 3 different areas.
We dont want Stateback free spending - so some form of upper limit
We dont want clubs with massive debts as that makes them vunerable - so some form discouragement against that
We dont want clubes spending unsutainably as that makes them vunerable - so something that stops them from doing that
But we want to be able to support clubs who are showing growth beyond there revenue - maybe allowing clubs in europe to spend more
I don't want to come across all Norman Tebbit on this, but there has to be a degree of personal responsibility. We can't regulate away the concept of risk - if clubs behave in reckless ways, there are consequences for that (not necessarily bad ones if they get lucky).
Premier League football is a grotesquely capitalist enterprise. That means people/clubs will fail. It's sort of the point.
Then they ought to be run like community assets (perhaps on a non-profit basis), which means they'd only buy and pay players that the community asset can afford.
But they don't want that (owners and fans). They want to flatter themselves into thinking thy're at the razor edge of commerce. That means downside risk, either for the ownership/club or for the game as a whole.
Post by: fredm on June 20, 2025, 03:54:33 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 20, 2025, 03:58:56 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 20, 2025, 04:04:08 PM
Anyway, good news on the Bein TV deal for Middle East and North Africa, up 10%.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 20, 2025, 04:14:02 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 20, 2025, 04:19:37 PM
Post by: Rotterdam on June 20, 2025, 04:19:55 PM
At some point there will be a breakaway and my bet would be the Saudis doing what they have with Golf.
The more restrictions UEFA try to enforce the more likely a split.
The action/ n action regarding C11560Y is a likely catalyst.
I think you've got a point.
My pal works for LiV golf and has told me for years that 'money is no object'. They offered Matsuyama well over $500m and he was persuaded to stay on the PGA tour. Tiger was offer $1b.
A guaranteed £1b per year to 14/16 or 18 clubs is peanuts.
You could go a couple from USA, three from Spain, Italy, England and couple from France, throw in Al-Nassar (or whatever they are called), some cannon fodder
from the Far East, maybe an African team or two.
I could see the big UEFA clubs joining a 'world league' played over Fri/Sat/Sun/Mon, and still keep their UEFA membership to compete as guests in the CL. When they have a CL game week, they have the weekends either side 'off'.
What this would do is allow a more open Premier League.
Players would love it, as less games and proabbly a huge increase in salary.
Post by: Ads on June 20, 2025, 06:18:53 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on June 20, 2025, 06:24:59 PM
The pyramid is supposedly the English games strength, but its very hard to see any of the promoted clubs surviving again. A few more years of pointless promotions for inevitable relegations and this idea will seem more palatable.
I think the split could be a PL1 and PL2. There’s enough decent clubs in the championship to generate interest. This way the TV deals can continue to grow and it can be sold as a way of increasing funding further down and bridging the gap for the promoted teams.
More radically I could see the PL starting a TV company off the back of it, monopolising the coverage.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 20, 2025, 06:42:31 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 20, 2025, 06:49:25 PM
The pyramid is supposedly the English games strength, but its very hard to see any of the promoted clubs surviving again. A few more years of pointless promotions for inevitable relegations and this idea will seem more palatable.
I think the split could be a PL1 and PL2. There’s enough decent clubs in the championship to generate interest. This way the TV deals can continue to grow and it can be sold as a way of increasing funding further down and bridging the gap for the promoted teams.
More radically I could see the PL starting a TV company off the back of it, monopolising the coverage.
I think this needs to happen. There are too many games being played and the season is stretching out to breaking point. the season runs later, expanded international tournaments run further through the summer and pre-season is longer and more intense and the chance for a break is gone for a lot of players. With the international windows some players get little chances through the season but a huge number of premier league players will be involved in those as well.
The outcome is that number and severity of injuries is rising year-on-year as we push players to the very edge of their physical limits.
reducing the premier league to 18, having a 2nd league of 18 below it and 3 20 team tiers would allow 4 extra teams up from the non-leagues and could allow more breaks at lower levels as well. This would mean fewer home games, which would have an impact at lower levels but could be addressed by better trickle-down funding.
Post by: Meanwood Villa on June 20, 2025, 06:52:11 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 20, 2025, 06:56:22 PM
With no relegation Paul?
Fuck that, 3down 3up at all levels, with a playoff for the 3rd spot. No 18th vs 3rd nonsense playoff either.
Post by: garyellis on June 20, 2025, 07:02:39 PM
Yep I could never support the no detriment principal. While the gap is obviously widening for promoted clubs we need to address that not throw away the USP of our pyramid system.With no relegation Paul?
Fuck that, 3down 3up at all levels, with a playoff for the 3rd spot. No 18th vs 3rd nonsense playoff either.
Post by: Richard E on June 20, 2025, 07:04:25 PM
Hopefully they introduce it before Blues start their domination.
Sadly none of us will still be around that far in the future.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 20, 2025, 07:04:38 PM
Post by: Stu on June 20, 2025, 07:21:03 PM
Post by: Ads on June 20, 2025, 07:28:27 PM
Post by: Dave on June 20, 2025, 07:42:40 PM
I've never had more fun.
Yeah. I'd take "today's football" over pretty much anything else I can remember. And I'd be surprised if there were many under 50 who thought differently.
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 20, 2025, 08:21:00 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 20, 2025, 08:23:05 PM
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 20, 2025, 08:42:52 PM
No. Any regionalisation should include at least three regions because the Midlands is neither Northern or Southern.My preference as well. I was talking to someone about this a few weeks ago (my Albion-supporting uncle I think) and he made a plausible case for regionalising League 2 and the 3 divisions of the National League into North, Central and South so it made me consider it. I think any regional leagues should set up along the lines of the motorway network because travel from West to East or vice versa in this country is a real pain. The Truro v Southend games next season won't see many away fans.
Post by: Sdwbvf on June 20, 2025, 09:38:59 PM
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 20, 2025, 10:10:53 PM
Not sure that's a great example. There is dual carriageway/motorway all the way. And easy trains.It probably isn't. There is also the issue of juggling those clubs on the edge of regions between divisions which is a problem Gloucester City among others have had over the years.
Post by: Sdwbvf on June 21, 2025, 11:12:59 AM
Post by: Stu on June 21, 2025, 11:32:14 AM
I've never had more fun.
Yeah. I'd take "today's football" over pretty much anything else I can remember. And I'd be surprised if there were many under 50 who thought differently.
It’s shit that this thread exists. We’re all thumbing through accounts year after year. If this is fun for some then good luck I guess but this alongside the endless wringing of money from the sport with endless tournaments isn’t for me.
Post by: tomd2103 on June 22, 2025, 12:07:11 PM
The pyramid is supposedly the English games strength, but its very hard to see any of the promoted clubs surviving again. A few more years of pointless promotions for inevitable relegations and this idea will seem more palatable.
I think the split could be a PL1 and PL2. There’s enough decent clubs in the championship to generate interest. This way the TV deals can continue to grow and it can be sold as a way of increasing funding further down and bridging the gap for the promoted teams.
More radically I could see the PL starting a TV company off the back of it, monopolising the coverage.
Yep, I've long thought that the Championship sells itself a bit short being tied in under the EFL banner, particularly with a TV deal. It's a good league in it's own right and would be even stronger if it aligned itself with the Premier League and went down to 20 teams. If you took last season as an example and relegated the four teams that finished in the bottom four positions to make 20, you'd be left with a pretty strong league with clubs that had pretty much all had grounds with over 25,000 capacities.
With the National League becoming a much stronger league as well with most teams in it being full-time, a restructuring of the league structure might be required.
Post by: eamonn on June 22, 2025, 04:07:12 PM
The pyramid is supposedly the English games strength, but its very hard to see any of the promoted clubs surviving again. A few more years of pointless promotions for inevitable relegations and this idea will seem more palatable.
Leeds sell more shirts than us Sunderland have Netflix. This will give them hope and comfort.
Post by: john e on June 22, 2025, 06:01:56 PM
It still bores the shit out of me though
Post by: Dave on June 23, 2025, 10:03:21 AM
Post by: Beard82 on June 23, 2025, 10:10:15 AM
Post by: dekko on June 23, 2025, 07:44:46 PM
Yes - unless other clubs are waiting to we're really desperate so they can low-ball us
This is my concern.
Also most of the clubs who can afford the kinds of fees we'd be wanting probably suspect we'll be challenging them for europe again next season, so allowing us to fail FFP and get a points deduction is in their interest......
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 23, 2025, 10:07:41 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on June 23, 2025, 11:06:15 PM
I've never had more fun.
Yeah. I'd take "today's football" over pretty much anything else I can remember. And I'd be surprised if there were many under 50 who thought differently.
It's an age thing. For the older generation the third division days were best. I loved the eighties, however bad it was.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 24, 2025, 12:23:10 AM
Post by: eamonn on June 24, 2025, 12:30:28 AM
Post by: Rory on June 24, 2025, 12:30:41 AM
I've never had more fun.
Yeah. I'd take "today's football" over pretty much anything else I can remember. And I'd be surprised if there were many under 50 who thought differently.
It's an age thing. For the older generation the third division days were best. I loved the eighties, however bad it was.
I guess you had a couple of nice times in the '80s, to balance things out.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 24, 2025, 12:35:23 AM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 24, 2025, 12:35:48 AM
Post by: algy on June 24, 2025, 10:04:23 AM
87-88 was wonderful.My first game was Swindon away on 7th May ... was my 6th birthday present, I'd been pestering my dad to let me go since 1986/7. Got tickets in the family stand there.
1992/93 was probably my favourite though, except for the very end. Went to almost every game, home and away, that season.
Post by: tomd2103 on June 24, 2025, 11:39:36 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 25, 2025, 12:34:48 PM
Christmas and New Year period 89/90 was another memorable time.
‘Hand it over hand it over hand it over Arsenal.’ Only for us to once again Villa it up at home to Wimbledon of all teams.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 25, 2025, 12:39:28 PM
Post by: VancouverLion on June 25, 2025, 01:24:11 PM
87-88 was wonderful.My first game was Swindon away on 7th May ... was my 6th birthday present, I'd been pestering my dad to let me go since 1986/7. Got tickets in the family stand there.
1992/93 was probably my favourite though, except for the very end. Went to almost every game, home and away, that season.
Did you go to Sheff UTD away and see me run onto the pitch all the way to the edge of the box to celebrate with Garry Parker after his second screamer?
92/93 season. Happy days those were.
Post by: LeeB on June 25, 2025, 02:21:36 PM
87-88 was wonderful.My first game was Swindon away on 7th May ... was my 6th birthday present, I'd been pestering my dad to let me go since 1986/7. Got tickets in the family stand there.
1992/93 was probably my favourite though, except for the very end. Went to almost every game, home and away, that season.
Did you go to Sheff UTD away and see me run onto the pitch all the way to the edge of the box to celebrate with Garry Parker after his second screamer?
92/93 season. Happy days those were.
I was there!
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 25, 2025, 03:42:59 PM
Platt missed a penalty after five minutes. We'd have gone five points clear if we'd won that. I sometimes wonder if we might have won the league if he had scored.
Yes because I certainly did after that win at Tottenham on the Wednesday night. That was glorious.
Post by: Tuscans on June 25, 2025, 05:35:32 PM
Aston Villa are the latest club to explore the possibility of selling their women’s team to help comply with the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
One source, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect relationships, said Villa have been looking into a sale for the past 18 months, having recorded losses of £195million over the past two years – leaving them in danger of breaching PSR.
Chelsea helped to balance the books by selling their women’s team to the club’s parent company in a move which generated a profit of nearly £200m, paving the way for other Premier League clubs to consider a similar arrangement.
Chelsea have since sold an eight per cent stake in their all-conquering women’s side to Alexis Ohanian, the tech millionaire who co-founded Reddit and is married to 23-time tennis grand slam champion Serena Williams.
It is unclear if Villa would effectively sell their women’s team – which finished sixth in the Women’s Super League last season – to themselves or to external investors, but discussions are advancing and any revenue would be potentially significant if they are to avoid breaching the Premier League’s financial rules in future.
Villa, whose men’s team has finished in the top seven for three consecutive campaigns under head coach Unai Emery, reported a loss of £85.4million for the 2023-24 season following a loss of £119.6 million for 2022-23.
They turned a profit of £300,000 in 2021-22 but a combined loss of more than £105million over three seasons would constitutes a PSR breach, although spending on infrastructure, youth and women’s football is exempt.
Chelsea banked £198.7m from the sale of their women’s team meaning they recorded a pre-tax profit of £128.4m and stayed within profitability and sustainability rules.
The Premier League is yet to approve the deal as being at fair market value, however, while Chelsea could still face a UEFA fine as the European governing body is refusing to allow them to offset losses against the sale.
Villa will compete in the Europa League next season after finishing sixth in the top flight.
Post by: Tuscans on June 25, 2025, 05:38:33 PM
Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) has been probing alleged overspending by the two Premier League clubs ahead of their participation in Europe next season.
Officials from both clubs have been in extended talks with the CFCB around reaching a settlement.
Both clubs passed the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR), which limits clubs to losing £105m over three years, in January, but Uefa operates under a different set of rules and parameters.
Clubs that play in Uefa competitions – Chelsea qualified for the Champions League after finishing fourth while Villa, who finished sixth, will play in the Europa League next season – must adhere to cost control ratio rules, meaning wages and transfer fees must be within a certain percentage of revenues, and can lose up to a maximum of £77m over three years.
Why are the two clubs being punished?
Chelsea were permitted to include the £200m sale of the club’s women’s team to a separate company – called Blueco 22 Midco Ltd – under the same ownership group in its accounts for Premier League auditors. But Uefa do not permit the practice, leaving a significant dent in their figures.
Chelsea recorded a pre-tax profit of £128.4m up to June 2024 in their accounts, but it included the sale of the women’s team.
In April Chelsea revealed in a statement that they had opened talks with Uefa to discuss “mitigating factors affecting [their] regulatory submissions”.
Uefa did not recognise the sale of Chelsea’s women’s team in their accounts (Photo: Getty)
For the latest accounts under consideration – 2023-24 – the cost control ratio was set at 80 percent. It was reduced to 70 percent for last season and will now remain at that level for the foreseeable future.
The Premier League is set to switch to a similar set of rules, but at a shareholders meetings in February clubs agreed to continue the PSR system for the upcoming season. It is likely the financial rules will align with Uefa’s the following season.
Aston Villa’s 2023-24 accounts revealed the club’s overall wage bill was £252m, against revenue of £257.7m. While only wages for football staff are included in Uefa’s calculations, Villa have been in discussions with the CFCB about a potential breach.
Both clubs have been expected to prove to Uefa that they are not ignoring the financial rules and are working towards compliance.
Aston Villa, Chelsea and Uefa declined to comment.
How much could they be fined?
Manchester United were fined £257,000 for a “minor” breach of Uefa’s financial fair play rules back in 2023.
United had claimed £240m in lost revenues due to the pandemic, but Uefa readjusted the figure to £12.8m. Under Uefa’s previous financial fair play rules, Paris Saint-Germain were once handed a £56m fine.
Analysis: Are the rules enough of a deterrent?
It is already questionable how much of a deterrent fines for financial breaches are for clubs with billionaire owners. They effectively become an additional tax on the super wealthy.
Then add in the fact that the “fine” is simply deducted from the prize money they will earn the following season and it further dilutes the punishment.
Breach the rules and gain an unfair advantage on rivals and, as it stands, the worst you’ll get is slightly less additional money next season. It’s hardly making an example of anyone.
It’s easy to see why clubs will choose that route over the alternative of operating within permitted means. Those extra millions on transfers and wages can be the difference between league places.
When Uefa introduced the cost control ratio rules in 2022, suggesting they were required to curb the exponentially growing expenditure on players, the governing body warned that breaches would include financial penalties and “sporting sanctions”.
Barcelona, who will also learn their fate for alleged breaches next week, will offer a litmus test for how seriously Uefa takes financial rule breaking.
The Spanish side were fined £420,000 for misreporting profits in their previous set of accounts. They had an appeal against the punishment rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in October.
They are now expected to be found in breach a second time, having been warned by Uefa that they face a severer punishment for multiple breaches.
It would be unprecedented, but if Uefa starts dolling out points deductions and teams start the group stage at a disadvantage, it will send a message to clubs that breaking financial rules will have consequences that hurt.
Post by: olaftab on June 25, 2025, 05:50:01 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on June 25, 2025, 06:39:43 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 25, 2025, 07:00:49 PM
Those are ridiculous punishments tbf. The fines are peanuts to a majority of clubs
Oh well, never mind.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 25, 2025, 07:16:29 PM
Those are ridiculous punishments tbf. The fines are peanuts to a majority of clubs
Oh well, never mind.
Guys, I agree, it's awful.
UPDATE: am over it.
Post by: OCD on June 25, 2025, 07:18:05 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on June 25, 2025, 07:39:50 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 25, 2025, 07:49:22 PM
Post by: eamonn on June 25, 2025, 08:18:47 PM
Post by: Matt C on June 25, 2025, 08:30:42 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 25, 2025, 08:34:15 PM
Maybe we’ll do a lighter version of the Chelsea deal and sell a stake to an investor.
We'd probably get more if the Women's thread was stickied.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 25, 2025, 09:15:04 PM
If UEFA are pooh-poohing (sic) Chelsea's sale of their women to themselves, and our bigger problem is wages to revenue ratio, is it worth following in their wake ?
Helps us with the PL side of things though. Better chances of finishing in top 4 and then more revenue options which means wages to turnover improves anyway.
Post by: paul_e on June 25, 2025, 10:35:03 PM
If UEFA are pooh-poohing (sic) Chelsea's sale of their women to themselves, and our bigger problem is wages to revenue ratio, is it worth following in their wake ?
Helps us with the PL side of things though. Better chances of finishing in top 4 and then more revenue options which means wages to turnover improves anyway.
PL PSR is pretty irrelevant after this week. Once we into a new accounting year we have a 90m loss drop off the accounts and there's no chance we will come close to that next season. After that it will almost certainly make way for a similar squad cost system to uefa.
Post by: Bent Neilsens Screamer on June 25, 2025, 10:46:20 PM
Those are ridiculous punishments tbf. The fines are peanuts to a majority of clubs
£56m (for PSG in the article) is quite hefty, the Man U one less so!!
Post by: sid1964 on June 26, 2025, 08:07:04 AM
Post by: Marlon From Bearwood on June 26, 2025, 08:33:53 AM
Hopefully we don’t follow the cheating Chelsea model and we overcome our FFP issue by some other means.
In an ideal world, yes. But if Chelsea have utilised this loophole and it’s an option for us to significantly improve our PSR situation then we might have to just hold our nose and do it. PL clubs didn’t vote to close the loophole so I assume others are considering it.
Post by: AV82EC on June 26, 2025, 08:35:42 AM
In fact if the value we get means we don’t need to sell a player next year then get on with it.
Bearing in mind Chelsea did a deal for £200m what would we get? My initial total wild stab in the dark guess would be between £20-£50m.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 26, 2025, 09:15:33 AM
We had no compunction in selling our ground to ourselves when we needed to do this in the Championship to comply with EFL FFP so doing it with the women’s team is a no brainer in my book. Crack on….
In fact if the value we get means we don’t need to sell a player next year then get on with it.
Bearing in mind Chelsea did a deal for £200m what would we get? My initial total wild stab in the dark guess would be between £20-£50m.
The Chelsea valuation is nothing to do with the standing of their women’s team today. It’s a projection of what it might one day be worth, 20/25 years from now. That’s what the bloke who paid £20m for a 10% stake said anyway. So there’s no reason we can’t pay ourselves as much as Chelsea did.
Post by: garyellis on June 26, 2025, 09:18:20 AM
We had no compunction in selling our ground to ourselves when we needed to do this in the Championship to comply with EFL FFP so doing it with the women’s team is a no brainer in my book. Crack on….It does not work like that re valuation. Is based on value in 25 years time not now, so no reason to discount if Chelsea figure is justified.
In fact if the value we get means we don’t need to sell a player next year then get on with it.
Bearing in mind Chelsea did a deal for £200m what would we get? My initial total wild stab in the dark guess would be between £20-£50m.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 26, 2025, 09:28:38 AM
Post by: AV82EC on June 26, 2025, 09:39:04 AM
We had no compunction in selling our ground to ourselves when we needed to do this in the Championship to comply with EFL FFP so doing it with the women’s team is a no brainer in my book. Crack on….
In fact if the value we get means we don’t need to sell a player next year then get on with it.
Bearing in mind Chelsea did a deal for £200m what would we get? My initial total wild stab in the dark guess would be between £20-£50m.
The Chelsea valuation is nothing to do with the standing of their women’s team today. It’s a projection of what it might one day be worth, 20/25 years from now. That’s what the bloke who paid £20m for a 10% stake said anyway. So there’s no reason we can’t pay ourselves as much as Chelsea did.
Thanks Percy wasn’t aware of that. Though my estimate was based on the fact that Chelsea are a very successful women’s club currently and despite being in the WSL for a few years we’re nowhere near that level as CL has described. Ah well we’ll see.
Post by: paul_e on June 26, 2025, 10:31:30 AM
Post by: Mr Diggles on June 26, 2025, 10:36:09 AM
We had no compunction in selling our ground to ourselves when we needed to do this in the Championship to comply with EFL FFP so doing it with the women’s team is a no brainer in my book. Crack on….
In fact if the value we get means we don’t need to sell a player next year then get on with it.
Bearing in mind Chelsea did a deal for £200m what would we get? My initial total wild stab in the dark guess would be between £20-£50m.
The Chelsea valuation is nothing to do with the standing of their women’s team today. It’s a projection of what it might one day be worth, 20/25 years from now. That’s what the bloke who paid £20m for a 10% stake said anyway. So there’s no reason we can’t pay ourselves as much as Chelsea did.
It's almost the exact same thinking and methodology that Enron used to cover up cash flow problems, with income booked against future successes. When they didn't materialise, more and larger booked profits were required, until it all came crashing down.
I'm not saying Villa are Enron at all, just as an accountant the historic parallels amuse me.
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 26, 2025, 12:58:23 PM
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 26, 2025, 01:06:11 PM
Not really, Enron involve fraud and deception.We had no compunction in selling our ground to ourselves when we needed to do this in the Championship to comply with EFL FFP so doing it with the women’s team is a no brainer in my book. Crack on….
In fact if the value we get means we don’t need to sell a player next year then get on with it.
Bearing in mind Chelsea did a deal for £200m what would we get? My initial total wild stab in the dark guess would be between £20-£50m.
The Chelsea valuation is nothing to do with the standing of their women’s team today. It’s a projection of what it might one day be worth, 20/25 years from now. That’s what the bloke who paid £20m for a 10% stake said anyway. So there’s no reason we can’t pay ourselves as much as Chelsea did.
It's almost the exact same thinking and methodology that Enron used to cover up cash flow problems, with income booked against future successes. When they didn't materialise, more and larger booked profits were required, until it all came crashing down.
I'm not saying Villa are Enron at all, just as an accountant the historic parallels amuse me.
This is potentially exuberant valuation practices.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 26, 2025, 01:18:53 PM
Hopefully we don’t follow the cheating Chelsea model and we overcome our FFP issue by some other means.
I absolutely hope we do because according to the rules as they stand they didn’t break any rules at all.
Post by: Duncan Shaw on June 26, 2025, 01:28:18 PM
Exactly, as much as we think it is morally corrupt, what they have done is cleverly unpick all the rules and use them to the edge of what is possible to their benefit. Given that generall the whole thing is stacked against us, then we should do exactly the same whilst we can.Hopefully we don’t follow the cheating Chelsea model and we overcome our FFP issue by some other means.
I absolutely hope we do because according to the rules as they stand they didn’t break any rules at all.
Post by: Dave on June 26, 2025, 01:32:28 PM
Hopefully we don’t follow the cheating Chelsea model and we overcome our FFP issue by some other means.
I absolutely hope we do because according to the rules as they stand they didn’t break any rules at all.
Also, we've already pulled most of the "cheating" levers that Chelsea have pulled. So if they're on the moral hook, then so are we.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 26, 2025, 01:41:14 PM
Hopefully we don’t follow the cheating Chelsea model and we overcome our FFP issue by some other means.
I absolutely hope we do because according to the rules as they stand they didn’t break any rules at all.
Also, we've already pulled most of the "cheating" levers that Chelsea have pulled. So if they're on the moral hook, then so are we.
Yeh precisely. And as long as something isn’t banned by the PL through a vote amongst its members I want us to find every single loophole just as they do. I’m tired of being behind those who have seemingly smarter personnel than us who bend or maneuver through regulations before everyone else catches up. It’s not against the rules if the rules against something hasn’t been created yet.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 26, 2025, 01:53:12 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 26, 2025, 02:51:31 PM
John Townley Aston Villa correspondent
12:58, 26 Jun 2025
John Townley
Our dedicated Aston Villa reporter is always on the pulse of all things claret and blue, from major talking points to transfer news to match action, John Townley will bring you the very latest from Bodymoor Heath and Villa Park.
"To get revenue, what do you need? To win. What do you need to win? To spend. But you cannot spend. So if you don’t spend, you don’t win, you don’t get revenue and you stay in the same cycle always."
Damian Vidagany hit the nail on the head last year. The Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules are no longer fit for purpose, haven’t caught up with inflation for over a decade, and simply hold ambitious clubs back.
Under V Sports, Villa climbed out of the Championship and returned to European football within five years, reaching a semi-final of the Conference League last May and then qualifying for the Champions League weeks later.
Unai Emery's side defied expectations once again last season by reaching the last eight of the Champions League and even had eventual champions Paris Saint-Germain on the ropes in the second leg at Villa Park, which they won 3-2.
A one-goal aggregate defeat meant Villa's European journey was over for that season, but they will be back next year competing for Europa League glory after finishing sixth in the Premier League.
The controversial 2-0 defeat at Old Trafford on the final day of the season denied Villa a return to the Champions League, which would have been a remarkable feat considering the hurdles put in their way over the past couple of years.
Douglas Luiz, Jhon Durán, and Moussa Diaby have all been sold in the last 12 months, generating around £157m.
Yet, Villa continue to grow on and off the pitch. Nassef Sawiris has come good on his promise to restore Villa's place at the top table of European football, but he and the club's officials have been incredibly frustrated by the Premier League's financial rules, which continue to hold the club back.
Last June, in an interview with the Financial Times, Sawiris claimed he was seeking advice over the prospect of taking legal action against the Premier League for their rules.
He said: "Some of the rules have actually resulted in cementing the status quo more than creating upward mobility and fluidity in the sport.
"The rules do not make sense and are not good for football. Managing a sports team has become more like being a treasurer or a bean counter rather than looking at what your team needs.
"It's more about creating paper profits, not real profits. It becomes a financial game, not a sporting game."
The overall aims of the league's financial rules are to "improve and preserve clubs’ financial sustainability and the competitive balance of the Premier League, promote aspiration of clubs, facilitate a workable alignment with other relevant competitions and support clubs’ competitiveness in UEFA club competitions, while providing certainty and clarity for clubs, fans and stakeholders."
Villa will question a few points raised by the Premier League, especially their claim that the rules "promote aspiration" of clubs as they and Newcastle have essentially been forced to sell players after reaching the top six.
Last year, Premier League club debt levels were approximately £3.6bn combined, according to Kieran Maguire, yet Villa contributed zero to that figure - being only one of three clubs out of debt.
According to Maguire, Tottenham and Manchester United accumulated the most debt in the league, while Arsenal and Liverpool made up the rest of the top six.
“We have no debt," Vidagany explained last year. "We are a club that is balanced with committed owners. We don’t owe money to anyone, but clubs with more revenue but huge debts can spend much more than us. Where is the sense in that?
"Many clubs borrow money. We don’t have this problem, but we still can’t spend. The system is perversion because it doesn’t matter how committed your owners are, how wealthy they are or how good your accounts are. You are not allowed to grow because you don’t have more revenues."
After failing to qualify for the Champions League for a second year in a row, Villa are considering selling at least part of their women’s team to boost revenue.
Chelsea sold their women’s team to a sister company for around £198.7m, but the Premier League has yet to confirm their transaction represents "fair market value".
When news of Chelsea's sale first broke, it was met with public outrage. If Villa were to do the same, a portion of football fans may also watch on in disapproval - but look deeper and the problem is evident.
The Premier League's financial rules do not encourage competition at the top of the table or clubs break up the 'big six', even though the likes of Villa and Newcastle have now consistently done so.
Manchester United and Tottenham have endured their worst league campaigns for some time, but due to the 'big six's' vastly greater revenue streams compared to the other 14 clubs in the league, they needn’t worry about what the future holds - or even the following season.
United are splashing cash as if they've earned the right to do so, and Tottenham are financially set for years to come after Daniel Levy cleverly positioned them to maximise their potential in the world of PSR.
Villa, meanwhile - who have to spend to improve - appear to be punished each summer for threatening clubs which literally packed up and confirmed their intent to form a breakaway Super League a few years ago.
Post by: AV82EC on June 26, 2025, 02:52:50 PM
Mr Popodopolous is still (2 hours ago) going on about our FFP position.
Ha ha ha. That gimp really does have his big lower league hard on for us doesn’t he. He could almost call himself a bluenose he’s that obsessed.
Post by: Ads on June 26, 2025, 04:11:07 PM
Post by: Dave on June 26, 2025, 04:15:59 PM
Fucking hell, we haven't played those gimps in 6 years!
Five - League Cup the season we were promoted. Traore's brilliant goal on his debut.
Post by: Ads on June 26, 2025, 04:21:58 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 27, 2025, 09:59:52 AM
Post by: paul_e on June 27, 2025, 10:10:17 AM
Parking the wages ratio issue in relation to UEFA competitions. I think we can safely assume one of two things now - we either don’t have a PSR issue before the June cut off date or we’ve got a problem and have completely messed it up. I suspect it’s the former.
It clearly is, the entire on-going story is based on people reading that we could 'only make £15m in losses' and thinking that meant we were on course to make more than that, with absolutely no effort to see how we could possibly manage that. I'd honestly not be surprised if it turns out we've made a decent amount of profit in the accounts for last year.
Post by: john e on June 27, 2025, 12:11:03 PM
Panic then sod all happens (hopefully)
Post by: Crown Hill on June 27, 2025, 01:09:37 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 27, 2025, 01:18:18 PM
It’s like Y2K all over again
Panic then sod all happens (hopefully)
Well yeah, I suppose you can stretch that analogy. Wasn’t part of the reason the Y2K panic didn’t materialise the fact that lots of prep work was done to mitigate its impact. It’s similar here.
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 27, 2025, 01:22:14 PM
Post by: Bosco81 on June 27, 2025, 01:28:22 PM
If we had qualified for the Champions League again would the bonuses paid to players/staff be counted in 24/25 accounts ? If so, does that mean our accounts this year (24/25) are in better condition because we didn't qualify ?
Post by: john2710 on June 27, 2025, 01:31:54 PM
Or if we don't have any PSR issues, it won't be mentioned again until next year.
Post by: OCD on June 27, 2025, 01:37:28 PM
Or if we don't have any PSR issues, it won't be mentioned again until next year.
Not sure about that. We'll be past the deadline but it's normally around January when we find out whether we've breached the rules or not and what the punishment would be.
Post by: Rigadon on June 27, 2025, 01:40:08 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on June 27, 2025, 01:49:17 PM
Post by: DrGonzo on June 27, 2025, 01:57:42 PM
Post by: paul_e on June 27, 2025, 03:06:56 PM
Wait, so this could bore on until next January????
No, that's hte old assessment process. Now they've changed it so the noise in January is about the on-going season.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 27, 2025, 03:31:20 PM
Absolutely, and no incomings before July 1st could indeed mean there are no issues as long as we don't spend in this period.
Most of the deals being announced by others are based on 1st July expenditure. I would have thought there might have been some more solid incoming talk by now. Afterall the 1st is Tuesday.
Post by: AV82EC on June 27, 2025, 03:54:22 PM
Absolutely, and no incomings before July 1st could indeed mean there are no issues as long as we don't spend in this period.
Most of the deals being announced by others are based on 1st July expenditure. I would have thought there might have been some more solid incoming talk by now. Afterall the 1st is Tuesday.
I think that’s because we didn’t get CL. I’d imagine the club are probably looking at what the likelihood is for Turnover in the coming financial year with EL rather than CL and maybe having to adjust some thinking based on that. I don’t think we’re in any sort of PSR trouble at all this year but we just need to be careful next year.
Post by: paul_e on June 27, 2025, 06:52:49 PM
Absolutely, and no incomings before July 1st could indeed mean there are no issues as long as we don't spend in this period.
Most of the deals being announced by others are based on 1st July expenditure. I would have thought there might have been some more solid incoming talk by now. Afterall the 1st is Tuesday.
I think that’s because we didn’t get CL. I’d imagine the club are probably looking at what the likelihood is for Turnover in the coming financial year with EL rather than CL and maybe having to adjust some thinking based on that. I don’t think we’re in any sort of PSR trouble at all this year but we just need to be careful next year.
not for PSR, we have a huge loss dropping off the calculations on tuesday. Everything comes down to the wage bill now.
Post by: Rigadon on June 27, 2025, 06:54:30 PM
Wait, so this could bore on until next January????
No, that's hte old assessment process. Now they've changed it so the noise in January is about the on-going season.
Thank fuck for that! It's so tedious - like the VAR of football accounting. Joyless.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on June 28, 2025, 12:42:37 PM
Post by: IFWaters on June 28, 2025, 02:53:56 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 28, 2025, 02:55:43 PM
Well if nobody goes on Monday then at least we know we haven't been had over a barrel by an accountant (shudders)
Don't knock it till you've tried it.
Post by: DrGonzo on June 28, 2025, 05:27:35 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on June 29, 2025, 01:21:11 AM
Absolutely, and no incomings before July 1st could indeed mean there are no issues as long as we don't spend in this period.
Most of the deals being announced by others are based on 1st July expenditure. I would have thought there might have been some more solid incoming talk by now. Afterall the 1st is Tuesday.
I think that’s because we didn’t get CL. I’d imagine the club are probably looking at what the likelihood is for Turnover in the coming financial year with EL rather than CL and maybe having to adjust some thinking based on that. I don’t think we’re in any sort of PSR trouble at all this year but we just need to be careful next year.
not for PSR, we have a huge loss dropping off the calculations on tuesday. Everything comes down to the wage bill now.
Yep, PSR position will improve massively, just as the system changes!
Post by: OCD on June 29, 2025, 06:57:11 AM
Post by: Beard82 on June 29, 2025, 03:49:14 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 29, 2025, 03:58:43 PM
Post by: Stu82 on June 29, 2025, 04:06:07 PM
It genuinely appears we have decided to fuck it and face the consequences whatever they are for what is likely a minor infraction. Or that all the “experts” have been completely wrong. Because there has not been any urgency whatsoever on selling any player.
Paule seems to have a good grip on situation, and we don’t have to sell.
Just noise from the sports journos.
Post by: paul_e on June 29, 2025, 04:54:31 PM
It genuinely appears we have decided to fuck it and face the consequences whatever they are for what is likely a minor infraction. Or that all the “experts” have been completely wrong. Because there has not been any urgency whatsoever on selling any player.
Paule seems to have a good grip on situation, and we don’t have to sell.
Just noise from the sports journos.
I'm only guessing based on what we know so I admit I might be wrong but I just don't see how we can possibly be in need of making sales at this point, the numbers just don't make sense for us to make a loss this season.
Post by: Stu82 on June 29, 2025, 05:02:24 PM
It genuinely appears we have decided to fuck it and face the consequences whatever they are for what is likely a minor infraction. Or that all the “experts” have been completely wrong. Because there has not been any urgency whatsoever on selling any player.
Paule seems to have a good grip on situation, and we don’t have to sell.
Just noise from the sports journos.
I'm only guessing based on what we know so I admit I might be wrong but I just don't see how we can possibly be in need of making sales at this point, the numbers just don't make sense for us to make a loss this season.
I know its guess work, but i looked at numbers as well and came to same conclusion.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 29, 2025, 06:24:47 PM
It genuinely appears we have decided to fuck it and face the consequences whatever they are for what is likely a minor infraction. Or that all the “experts” have been completely wrong. Because there has not been any urgency whatsoever on selling any player.
We don’t know any of that though.
For all we know we’ve been desperately trying to shift players.
Post by: aj2k77 on June 29, 2025, 06:34:04 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 29, 2025, 07:33:20 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 29, 2025, 08:08:28 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 29, 2025, 08:09:53 PM
Just employ an army of top barristers like the115 have and erode the process/rules to nil
Well, yes, it clearly works.
TBH ultimately, I reckon the whole shebang will go out of the window.
Post by: Richard E on June 29, 2025, 08:14:32 PM
Just employ an army of top barristers like the115 have and erode the process/rules to nil
This will work best, in my opinion, if the club pay me vast quantities of money to instruct said army of top barristers.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 29, 2025, 08:18:58 PM
Post by: aj2k77 on June 29, 2025, 09:03:00 PM
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 29, 2025, 09:45:08 PM
I know they have had champs league money coming in for years but there is no way they could of made enough in 5 years to cover that.
This new wages bullshit we are having to now deal with how are they not failing on it by huge contracts over ridiculous lengths of time?
Post by: Demitri_C on June 29, 2025, 10:18:04 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 29, 2025, 11:11:08 PM
£40+ mil on two of our kids who could not be further away from thier first team if they had stayed at the Villa.
I know they have had champs league money coming in for years but there is no way they could of made enough in 5 years to cover that.
This new wages bullshit we are having to now deal with how are they not failing on it by huge contracts over ridiculous lengths of time?
Because of the ridiculous lengths of time.
I’d have thought that with the amount of time we spend talking about all this, more people would understand it by now.
https://x.com/kieranmaguire/status/1939427728589021528?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Post by: DB on June 30, 2025, 09:40:36 AM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
Post by: Somniloquism on June 30, 2025, 10:09:58 AM
Post by: Tuscans on June 30, 2025, 10:26:21 AM
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 30, 2025, 10:28:23 AM
Post by: Tuscans on June 30, 2025, 10:31:19 AM
Great. I just have one question...That's for you to find out who he is...right?
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 30, 2025, 10:32:29 AM
Post by: aj2k77 on June 30, 2025, 10:49:20 AM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
No they haven't. They've sold around £700m over the same period. So they've spent £1bn on transfers since 2020.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 10:50:13 AM
https://x.com/slbsn/status/1939615401542820043?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA
Post by: DB on June 30, 2025, 11:26:39 AM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
No they haven't. They've sold around £700m over the same period. So they've spent £1bn on transfers since 2020.
It has been explained how they are spending vs their money coming in.
Post by: aj2k77 on June 30, 2025, 11:30:54 AM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
No they haven't. They've sold around £700m over the same period. So they've spent £1bn on transfers since 2020.
It has been explained how they are spending vs their money coming in.
Yes and you said they'd had more money come in then go out on transfer fees. They haven't. They've spent £1bn net since 2020. We've spent less than £200m net.
Post by: Crown Hill on June 30, 2025, 11:44:48 AM
From Stefan Borson,
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
This is why I no longer pay any heed to him whatsoever! A complete BS merchant with 20/20 hindsight!
Post by: Somniloquism on June 30, 2025, 12:04:13 PM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
No they haven't. They've sold around £700m over the same period. So they've spent £1bn on transfers since 2020.
It has been explained how they are spending vs their money coming in.
Yes and you said they'd had more money come in then go out on transfer fees. They haven't. They've spent £1bn net since 2020. We've spent less than £200m net.
During that period you have quoted, they have sold their hotels and women's team for a fair whack of revenue and won both the ECL cups for various extra revenue as well. You also have to look at a player being bought and a player being sold is worth different values on FFP/PSR. A player being bought for £100mil is £25mil a year for PSR, but a player being sold for £100mil could well be £100mil directly on the books. And that doesn't include the creative accounting they were doing by offering a 9 year contract which meant the purchased players were only less then £15mil on the books instead.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 12:06:36 PM
From Stefan Borson,
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
This is why I no longer pay any heed to him whatsoever! A complete BS merchant with 20/20 hindsight!
Same with the podcasters. Some of them sounded suicidal a couple of weeks ago. One of them grossly exaggerated things last year or a couple of years ago and was told this week by a sycophantic co-host that it turned out he was ‘1,000% right’ after all.
All just driven by a desperate need for content.
Post by: Crown Hill on June 30, 2025, 12:16:50 PM
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on June 30, 2025, 12:19:57 PM
Here’s another classic:
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
Christ.
Post by: ChicagoLion on June 30, 2025, 12:28:01 PM
Here’s another classic:
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
With insight like that.
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 30, 2025, 12:31:54 PM
Post by: andyh on June 30, 2025, 12:56:55 PM
Post by: Tuscans on June 30, 2025, 01:05:17 PM
@TheAthleticFC
Exclusive: Aston Villa to avoid PSR breach as they close in on £55m women's team deal. Warehouse project also lined up for PSR boost and club commit to Uefa player cost cut. Story with @SamWallaceTel #AVFC
Post by: Crown Hill on June 30, 2025, 01:13:47 PM
Exclusive: Midlands club are also eyeing similar deal for ‘The Warehouse’ – club’s new music and event space in North Stand car park
Matt Law
Football News Correspondent.
Sam Wallace
Chief Football Writer
30 June 2025 12:59pm BST
Aston Villa’s bid to avoid breaching Premier League financial controls has seen the club hold talks over a selling a stake in their women’s team to investors that could put a value in the region of £55 million on it.
Telegraph Sport understands that Villa have been working on a deal that would involve selling as much as 10 per cent of the women’s team to investors with a view to selling the rest of it to the club’s holding company to help them comply with profit and sustainability rules (PSR).
It can also be revealed that Villa have committed to bringing down their player costs by almost 20 per cent over this summer and next, as they wait to find out whether or not they will be punished by Uefa.
Although the June 30 accounting deadline expires on Monday, it is possible for the sale of an asset, such as the women’s team, to be included in the 2024/25 accounts if the sale has been agreed in principle but the price has not been finalised.
Villa’s pricing of the women’s team could effectively be sealed by selling a stake to investors who are thought to have held talks about buying as much as 10 per cent for around £5.5 million.
That would allow Villa to sell the remaining 90 per cent to the club’s own parent company, controlled by billionaire Nassef Sawiris, potentially generating around £55 million in total as PSR compliant funds.
It is understood that a similar process has been considered for “The Warehouse”, the club’s new music and events space in the North Stand car park with a potential value of around £50 million.
The Warehouse, when completed, will be opened to fans on matchdays. It was also established as a live venue, which the club says will be run by the specialist company Oak View Group, and used on non-matchdays.
Last year, Villa rushed through the pre-June 30 sale of midfielder Douglas Luiz to Juventus to generate the PSR funds that would avoid a points deduction and this time around have looked at different methods to raise the necessary income.
Villa, who reached the quarter-finals of the Champions League last season, reported a loss of £85.4 million for the 2023-24 campaign following a loss of £119.6 million for 2022-23.
The club turned a profit of £300,000 in 2021-22, but a combined loss of more than £105 million over three seasons would constitute a PSR breach. Spending on infrastructure, youth and women’s football is exempt.
The Premier League’s PSR rules are not the only issue for Villa, who qualified for next season’s Europa League and must comply with Uefa’s own financial controls - squad cost ratio rules (SCR). These put a limit on spending relative to revenue.
Uefa does not permit clubs to register income from assets, such as the sale of the women’s team to related parties and sister companies.
Under Uefa regulations, clubs are permitted £170 million losses over a three-year period and those in European competition were required to keep spending on player wages and fees at a maximum of 80 per cent of revenue in the 2023-24 season, when Villa reached the semi-finals of the Europa Conference League.
That dropped to 70 per cent for the most recent season and Villa have been holding talks with Uefa about committing to a spending plan that will see their squad cost ratio decrease this summer and the next.
It is understood that Villa have committed to bringing down their squad cost ratio by a percentage under 10 per cent this summer and a further percentage under 10 per cent next summer in the hope of avoiding heavy sanctions.
That is likely to involve the sale of at least one first-team player. Top earner Emi Martinez, Lucas Digne, Ollie Watkins and academy graduate Jacob Ramsey have all been linked with moves away from Villa Park, while Morgan Rogers has attracted the interest of a host of clubs.
Villa and Chelsea are expected to find out imminently their punishments for breaching Uefa’s SCR rules, with fines thought to be the most likely outcomes for both clubs.
Chelsea sold their women’s team to the club’s holding company for £198.7 million, with Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian purchasing a stake of between eight and 10 per cent for £20 million
Post by: aj2k77 on June 30, 2025, 01:33:55 PM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
No they haven't. They've sold around £700m over the same period. So they've spent £1bn on transfers since 2020.
It has been explained how they are spending vs their money coming in.
Yes and you said they'd had more money come in then go out on transfer fees. They haven't. They've spent £1bn net since 2020. We've spent less than £200m net.
During that period you have quoted, they have sold their hotels and women's team for a fair whack of revenue and won both the ECL cups for various extra revenue as well. You also have to look at a player being bought and a player being sold is worth different values on FFP/PSR. A player being bought for £100mil is £25mil a year for PSR, but a player being sold for £100mil could well be £100mil directly on the books. And that doesn't include the creative accounting they were doing by offering a 9 year contract which meant the purchased players were only less then £15mil on the books instead.
I already know this. I'm just saying what a farce the whole shebang is. The fact Chelsea can spend 1bn net and still make a pretend paper profit whilst we were forced to sell first teamers. The rules don't work and Chelsea have taken the piss and spent an absolute fortune. Chelsea and Man City have gotten away with murder.
Post by: DB on June 30, 2025, 02:19:21 PM
Chelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
No they haven't. They've sold around £700m over the same period. So they've spent £1bn on transfers since 2020.
It has been explained how they are spending vs their money coming in.
Yes and you said they'd had more money come in then go out on transfer fees. They haven't. They've spent £1bn net since 2020. We've spent less than £200m net.
During that period you have quoted, they have sold their hotels and women's team for a fair whack of revenue and won both the ECL cups for various extra revenue as well. You also have to look at a player being bought and a player being sold is worth different values on FFP/PSR. A player being bought for £100mil is £25mil a year for PSR, but a player being sold for £100mil could well be £100mil directly on the books. And that doesn't include the creative accounting they were doing by offering a 9 year contract which meant the purchased players were only less then £15mil on the books instead.
I already know this. I'm just saying what a farce the whole shebang is. The fact Chelsea can spend 1bn net and still make a pretend paper profit whilst we were forced to sell first teamers. The rules don't work and Chelsea have taken the piss and spent an absolute fortune. Chelsea and Man City have gotten away with murder.
Is their much difference to what we have / are doing vs Chelsea?
Post by: Bent Neilsens Screamer on June 30, 2025, 02:46:31 PM
From Stefan Borson,
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
This is why I no longer pay any heed to him whatsoever! A complete BS merchant with 20/20 hindsight!
Same with the podcasters. Some of them sounded suicidal a couple of weeks ago. One of them grossly exaggerated things last year or a couple of years ago and was told this week by a sycophantic co-host that it turned out he was ‘1,000% right’ after all.
All just driven by a desperate need for content.
Did Gregg Evans grossly exaggerate PSR, wasn’t it more that he was one of the first ones saying that we’d have to sell to meet the requirements and that came to fruition. Bardell just pointed out that he got stick for it but was correct.
Post by: Keeno on June 30, 2025, 03:09:42 PM
From Stefan Borson,
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
This is why I no longer pay any heed to him whatsoever! A complete BS merchant with 20/20 hindsight!
Same with the podcasters. Some of them sounded suicidal a couple of weeks ago. One of them grossly exaggerated things last year or a couple of years ago and was told this week by a sycophantic co-host that it turned out he was ‘1,000% right’ after all.
All just driven by a desperate need for content.
Did Gregg Evans grossly exaggerate PSR, wasn’t it more that he was one of the first ones saying that we’d have to sell to meet the requirements and that came to fruition. Bardell just pointed out that he got stick for it but was correct.
Yeah it's true, I don't think it was anything from fan content that was explicitly saying we'd have the first XI up for sale - this window it feels like it's mainly been poundshop 'journos' peddling rubbish about players and using the June 30th deadline as an excuse for speculation
Post by: dekko on June 30, 2025, 03:12:33 PM
From Stefan Borson,
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
This is why I no longer pay any heed to him whatsoever! A complete BS merchant with 20/20 hindsight!
Same with the podcasters. Some of them sounded suicidal a couple of weeks ago. One of them grossly exaggerated things last year or a couple of years ago and was told this week by a sycophantic co-host that it turned out he was ‘1,000% right’ after all.
All just driven by a desperate need for content.
Did Gregg Evans grossly exaggerate PSR, wasn’t it more that he was one of the first ones saying that we’d have to sell to meet the requirements and that came to fruition. Bardell just pointed out that he got stick for it but was correct.
Yes, he was completely correct. People here were confidently asserting that he made it up because he's a bitter Albion fan and we had no PSR problems because we'd just bought Morgan Rogers.
Post by: VinnieChase84 on June 30, 2025, 03:44:12 PM
We’ve done this cause it gives larger headroom/space - with 22/23 season dropping off the books so PSR wise we’re very comfortable
Posted we could keep squad like for like pretty much / that remains. Some fat would have to be trimmed to reduce some wages but a lot of scope on that
I mean between Coutinho, Dendonker, Buendia, Moreno - that’s over 400k a week
Next summer by default even if we do nothing we reduce our wage bill by over 300k due to out on contracts
So this SCR will take some being clever but we have some scope to play with the %
We will likely move 1-2 larger ones on this summer purely so we can invest more also. Emi, Bailey and Digne would be my guess
Post by: Hookeysmith on June 30, 2025, 04:04:08 PM
*One for the kids to ask about.
I wonder how may ITK pundits will be issuing apologies for scaremongering - lets not hold our breath.
What's the betting we buy a few once July turns
Post by: aj2k77 on June 30, 2025, 04:18:06 PM
Is their much difference to what we have / are doing vs Chelsea?
About £800m quids worth of difference.
Post by: DB on June 30, 2025, 04:27:49 PM
Is their much difference to what we have / are doing vs Chelsea?
About £800m quids worth of difference.
Ok, we are going around in cricles
Post by: Paul.S on June 30, 2025, 04:52:16 PM
From Stefan Borson,
"There is NO realistic chance Villa will fail 24/25 PSR in the post Chelsea world. Either they are not at the £105m limit or they will sell a player today or transfer an asset such as the Women's team. They do not need to let the outside world know today."
That’s what they call a U turn.
Post by: Ads on June 30, 2025, 04:59:17 PM
Post by: VillaTim on June 30, 2025, 05:23:52 PM
+ the hotel saleChelsea to spend another £60m. Taking their total since 2020 to £1.7 billion. But we have to sell players.
Chelsea have sold more than they have spent, plus the money from their women’s team sale.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 05:34:31 PM
Increase revenue, maintain salaries, percentage of wages to revenue decreases. As we've massively increased revenue, job jobbed.
Exactly. Get ready for all the ‘we must reduce costs’ podcasts/tweets/articles now.
I mean, I know they’re football journalists trying to talk about financial stuff, but you’d think some of them would at least have a basic grasp of maths.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 05:39:34 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 30, 2025, 05:51:07 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/v6DJvG3s/IMG-6864.jpg) (https://ibb.co/v6DJvG3s)
Post by: LeeB on June 30, 2025, 06:23:35 PM
Increase revenue, maintain salaries, percentage of wages to revenue decreases. As we've massively increased revenue, job jobbed.
Exactly. Get ready for all the ‘we must reduce costs’ podcasts/tweets/articles now.
I mean, I know they’re football journalists trying to talk about financial stuff, but you’d think some of them would at least have a basic grasp of maths.
They don't have to or need to, the inconclusive noise is preferable for generating clicks and content, the truth is too boring.
Post by: john2710 on June 30, 2025, 06:27:25 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on June 30, 2025, 06:42:17 PM
Was always on the cards. We should just try buy more things and just sell them to ourselves like chelsea do.
PSR is officially dead
Post by: aj2k77 on June 30, 2025, 06:51:30 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 07:44:35 PM
Increase revenue, maintain salaries, percentage of wages to revenue decreases. As we've massively increased revenue, job jobbed.
Exactly. Get ready for all the ‘we must reduce costs’ podcasts/tweets/articles now.
I mean, I know they’re football journalists trying to talk about financial stuff, but you’d think some of them would at least have a basic grasp of maths.
They don't have to or need to, the inconclusive noise is preferable for generating clicks and content, the truth is too boring.
Good points, as ever.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 07:51:22 PM
The Holte Pub must be worth a few quid.
Indeed. And it’s a hotel by the way.
Just had a twitter-spat with someone saying our revenue ceiling is £300m. I replied that our revenue for last season is £360m+.
The geezer replied ‘you won’t be in the UCL every year, don’t know about hotels though’.
I said ‘we’re building one and we own one, and we’re building a 3,500 cap live venue.’
Post by: Rigadon on June 30, 2025, 07:53:35 PM
Post by: Crown Hill on June 30, 2025, 08:00:46 PM
Increase revenue, maintain salaries, percentage of wages to revenue decreases. As we've massively increased revenue, job jobbed.
Exactly. Get ready for all the ‘we must reduce costs’ podcasts/tweets/articles now.
I mean, I know they’re football journalists trying to talk about financial stuff, but you’d think some of them would at least have a basic grasp of maths.
They don't have to or need to, the inconclusive noise is preferable for generating clicks and content, the truth is too boring.
Good points, as ever.
Yep well said chaps and what snake oil salesmen like Borson do is run through all the possible scenarios without deliverig any actual genuine insight or analysis. Then when the event happens he claims to have predicted it without admitting he actually forecast every possible scenario.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on June 30, 2025, 08:01:34 PM
So we haven’t ‘breached’ after all. Nice one. We can park this nonsense until next June.
This could well be the last year of PSR.
Post by: Concrete Tom on June 30, 2025, 08:03:33 PM
So we haven’t ‘breached’ after all. Nice one. We can park this nonsense until next June.
This could well be the last year of PSR.
It was supposed to transition to SCR this season already. Postponed by at least one season.
Not that it will change the status quo in any meaningful way anyway.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on June 30, 2025, 08:05:26 PM
I said ‘we’re building one and we own one, and we’re building a 3,500 cap live venue.’
However, if we sell it, we're selling the future revenue from that.
Post by: paul_e on June 30, 2025, 08:14:48 PM
I said ‘we’re building one and we own one, and we’re building a 3,500 cap live venue.’
However, if we sell it, we're selling the future revenue from that.
Maybe, but most likely a peppercorn rent for matches with the club taking all of the profits and the revenue for non football activities going to the 'owners'.
Post by: IFWaters on June 30, 2025, 08:38:11 PM
He needs to sort out his dandruff first before espousing on the state of our finances.Here’s another classic:
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
With insight like that.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on June 30, 2025, 08:54:57 PM
Here’s another classic:
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
With insight like that.
He needs to sort out his dandruff first before espousing on the state of our finances.
I didn't know he had dandruff.
Post by: thick_mike on June 30, 2025, 08:56:39 PM
Here’s another classic:
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
With insight like that.
He needs to sort out his dandruff first before espousing on the state of our finances.
I didn't know he had dandruff.
He keeps it under his hat.
Post by: Rigadon on June 30, 2025, 09:08:52 PM
So we haven’t ‘breached’ after all. Nice one. We can park this nonsense until next June.
This could well be the last year of PSR.
A different kind of nonsense awaits instead then!? Marvellous!
Post by: IFWaters on June 30, 2025, 09:11:39 PM
Unfortunately not. In that video it's all over his shirt.Here’s another classic:
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
With insight like that.
He needs to sort out his dandruff first before espousing on the state of our finances.
I didn't know he had dandruff.
He keeps it under his hat.
Post by: Exeter 77 on June 30, 2025, 09:11:59 PM
Here’s another classic:That bloke irritates me a bit. He seems far to long in the tooth to be doing the whole YouTube self-publicising thing.
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
Post by: Mister E on June 30, 2025, 09:35:39 PM
Fcukin' ageist!!😁😁Here’s another classic:That bloke irritates me a bit. He seems far to long in the tooth to be doing the whole YouTube self-publicising thing.
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
Post by: Nunkin1965 on June 30, 2025, 09:49:57 PM
So are we saying that YouTubers need to be of a certain age to relevant or indeed be allowed to post?Fcukin' ageist!!😁😁Here’s another classic:That bloke irritates me a bit. He seems far to long in the tooth to be doing the whole YouTube self-publicising thing.
https://x.com/justin_avfc_/status/1939624793084399722?
He's done some decent stuff with Kevin Gage and Garry Thompson tbf.
Post by: VillaTim on June 30, 2025, 10:37:17 PM
Oh, and if The Warehouse sale goes through successfully, should we be buying up more local real estate and doing it up? I hope so.It would make sense to buy the Aston hotel on the island near Tesco . Wonderful historic building and great location
Post by: malckennedy on June 30, 2025, 10:47:15 PM
It was the last 8, you ignorant fucking “Big 6” loving ******!!
Post by: Brend'Watkins on June 30, 2025, 10:49:09 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on June 30, 2025, 11:09:48 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on June 30, 2025, 11:10:38 PM
It really amazes me that ‘you tube’ wanna be accountants have our bleak future all figured out year on year only to be made to look like the absolute mugs they really are year on year by our astute owners.
Amazing isn't it that the professionals that the club employ to deal with this kind of thing have a better grasp of it than YouTubers who don't have access to the full details.
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 01, 2025, 04:32:16 AM
exactly.It really amazes me that ‘you tube’ wanna be accountants have our bleak future all figured out year on year only to be made to look like the absolute mugs they really are year on year by our astute owners.
Amazing isn't it that the professionals that the club employ to deal with this kind of thing have a better grasp of it than YouTubers who don't have access to the full details.
Sadly the world is now full of social media tarts who’s only reason for existence is” look at me, aren’t I great” even if they have to make stuff up in an attempt to be relevant.
Post by: jwarry on July 01, 2025, 06:23:20 AM
Villa to sell women's team to parent company to help comply with PSR
Club follow Chelsea's strategy after recording losses of £195m over the past two years and missing out on qualification for Champions League
Aston Villa are set to sell their women's team to their parent company in a move that would help them comply with the Premier League's financial rules.
The Times reported in April that Villa were considering selling stakes in their women's team, and it is now understood that the club plan to effectively sell 90 per cent of it to themselves, with the strategy echoing a transaction made by Chelsea last year.
The 90 per cent stake would be bought by V Sports, Villa's parent company owned by Wes Edens and the Villa chairman, Nassef Sawiris. The other 10 per cent would be sold to an external investor, potentially from the United States. Any deal would need Premier League approval.
The value of the sale of Villa's women's team, who finished sixth in the WSL, remains unknown, but the involvement of US investors in buying a stake could also be significant in terms of securing Premier League agreement to the valuation.
Villa recorded a £195million loss over the past two years, placing them at risk of breaching the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). A loss of more than £105million over three seasons
constitutes a PSR breach, so selling the women's team could provide Villa with crucial funds.
Villa unsuccessfully attempted to have the PSR limit raised to £135million in June 2024 and Sawiris told the Financial Times that month that the rules “do not make sense”. Their failure to qualify for next season's Champions League has denied them a lucrative revenue stream.
Villa would be the second Premier League club to effectively sell their women's team to themselves. Chelsea sold their women's team to their holding company for £200million last June, though that transaction has still to be approved in terms of value. However, the purchase of 8 per cent of the women's team by Alexis Ohanian, the American entrepreneur and husband of Serena Williams, puts the value considerably higher than £200million according to Chelsea insiders, which should help considerably in the Premier League's valuation process.
The Premier League allows the sale of “fixed tangible assets” to clubs' parent or sister companies and for the paper profits of those sales to be used for PSR purposes.
It disputes that these are loopholes because all deals have to ratified by the league as being of fair market value and it can oblige clubs to reduce the sale price, as it did with Chelsea selling two hotels to a sister company where the original value of the deal — £76.5million — was reduced to £70.5million.
Nevertheless, Uefa does not allow such transactions between sister companies to be registered as income for its financial system. As revealed by The Times, both Villa and Chelsea have breached Uefa's limits for last season and are close to agreeing financial penalties.
Villa declined to comment.
Post by: Drummond on July 01, 2025, 07:37:37 AM
No firesale though. We may have been frantically trying to sell players at the right money and not been successful, so took a different route. We'll find out one day.
Post by: Rudy Can't Fail on July 01, 2025, 08:45:29 AM
Reading the Guardian’s report on the sale of the women’s team and PSR. Nothing I didn’t already know and then, towards the end of the article, the statement that “Villa’s run to the last 16 of the Champions League earned about £100m”!!!!!
It was the last 8, you ignorant fucking “Big 6” loving ******!!
When they previewed the quarter final second leg games they didn't even bother mentioning our game with PSG. Wankers!
Post by: Beard82 on July 01, 2025, 09:16:26 AM
The rules make little sense, and penalise clubs in growth phases while protect them in decline phases. At the very least it always us to sell any players we are going to sell at market value.
Post by: olaftab on July 01, 2025, 09:32:29 AM
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 01, 2025, 12:55:05 PM
Oh, and if The Warehouse sale goes through successfully, should we be buying up more local real estate and doing it up? I hope so.It would make sense to buy the Aston hotel on the island near Tesco . Wonderful historic building and great location
Full HMO i am afraid - so not for sale
Post by: andyh on July 01, 2025, 04:31:36 PM
Simon Jordan talking sense on the ridiculousness of the PSR rules and why they were introduced
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 01, 2025, 05:15:16 PM
Oh, and if The Warehouse sale goes through successfully, should we be buying up more local real estate and doing it up? I hope so.It would make sense to buy the Aston hotel on the island near Tesco . Wonderful historic building and great location
Full HMO i am afraid - so not for sale
There’s a full HMO by me that’s not long been sold.
Post by: SaddVillan on July 01, 2025, 08:11:38 PM
Turning to Squad Cost Ratio rules, we've got to get wages below 70,% of revenue next season.
We could make a start by shifting out:
Ned
KKH
Moreno
Donck
Emi B
Leon Bailey
Coutinho
Dibu
Kortney Hause
Louie Barry
I know some have or are just about to leave, but only one was a first team regular last season.
Moving them on shouldn't weaken us very much (assuming we sign decent replacements for Bailey and Dibu) and it would also free up headroom n the wage bill and create room in the squad for newcomers/promotees from U21 and U19 ranks, as well as bringing in transfer fees to help with PSR.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on July 01, 2025, 09:32:35 PM
https://youtu.be/SCnaMMhKR6A?si=t1_xdXS0wGUmXpm6
Simon Jordan talking sense on the ridiculousness of the PSR rules and why they were introduced
I don’t think Jim White understood any of that, he certainly didn’t appear to be listening.
Post by: Beard82 on July 01, 2025, 09:44:24 PM
Looks like we've resolved PSR/FFP for 2024-25, but I wouldn't be surprised if it rears its head again next Easter.Olsen and Donck and to a lesser extent Phil - were a real issue - big wages - no resell and no real contribution (Phil had a handful of good games). Its so important lock in big wages with no resell like those.
Turning to Squad Cost Ratio rules, we've got to get wages below 70,% of revenue next season.
We could make a start by shifting out:
Ned
KKH
Moreno
Donck
Emi B
Leon Bailey
Coutinho
Dibu
Kortney Hause
Louie Barry
I know some have or are just about to leave, but only one was a first team regular last season.
Moving them on shouldn't weaken us very much (assuming we sign decent replacements for Bailey and Dibu) and it would also free up headroom n the wage bill and create room in the squad for newcomers/promotees from U21 and U19 ranks, as well as bringing in transfer fees to help with PSR.
Post by: SaddVillan on July 01, 2025, 09:47:01 PM
Add him to the list.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 03, 2025, 01:10:07 PM
Oh, and if The Warehouse sale goes through successfully, should we be buying up more local real estate and doing it up? I hope so.It would make sense to buy the Aston hotel on the island near Tesco . Wonderful historic building and great location
Full HMO i am afraid - so not for sale
There’s a full HMO by me that’s not long been sold.
There seems to be people who can facilitate it:
https://www.openpropertygroup.com/how-it-works/sell-your-hmo/?keyword=sell%20hmo&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=289836065&gbraid=0AAAAADoI2udDv2bqIDR8BwlEm5Sbpd8Bn&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1JjDBhDjARIsABlM2StrxDt8HbFMUfSmeyzuPmI129fYkHlrcR4Sty2QZ0itYNIIIf2b-HgaAq6eEALw_wcB
Post by: andyh on July 03, 2025, 06:34:00 PM
I too have no iidea who they are, but the announcement on their own website and accompanying video is better than I have ever seen for any sponsor.
https://www.xapobank.com/en
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 03, 2025, 06:42:46 PM
We have signed a sponsorship deal with Xapo bank.
I too have no iidea who they are, but the announcement on their own website and accompanying video is better than I have ever seen for any sponsor.
https://www.xapobank.com/en
Sick! I wonder if they’ll be front of shirt after the gambling ban comes in.
Post by: WassallVillain on July 03, 2025, 06:48:23 PM
What’s the difference. The leader at the top of that page says be prepared to lose all your money.We have signed a sponsorship deal with Xapo bank.
I too have no iidea who they are, but the announcement on their own website and accompanying video is better than I have ever seen for any sponsor.
https://www.xapobank.com/en
Sick! I wonder if they’ll be front of shirt after the gambling ban comes in.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 03, 2025, 06:51:28 PM
What’s the difference. The leader at the top of that page says be prepared to lose all your money.We have signed a sponsorship deal with Xapo bank.
I too have no iidea who they are, but the announcement on their own website and accompanying video is better than I have ever seen for any sponsor.
https://www.xapobank.com/en
Sick! I wonder if they’ll be front of shirt after the gambling ban comes in.
The voluntary ban I suppose, and yeah, that’s about all.
Post by: Ads on July 03, 2025, 07:43:05 PM
Post by: N'ZMAV on July 03, 2025, 07:47:56 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 03, 2025, 08:09:36 PM
Crypto is a gamble, as much as roulette
Investing in anything is a gamble by that measure.
Post by: paul_e on July 03, 2025, 08:19:08 PM
Crypto is a gamble, as much as roulette
it really isn't, for most people crypto is far worse.
Post by: IFWaters on July 04, 2025, 07:54:25 AM
Crypto is a gamble, as much as roulette
it really isn't, for most people crypto is far worse.
Yep, a giant Ponzi scheme with no underlying asset on which to base confidence eg a central bank or business producing income. Once people lose faith in the scheme the whole thing will collapse as everyone tries to get their money out.
Post by: PeterWithe on July 04, 2025, 08:30:51 AM
What’s the difference. The leader at the top of that page says be prepared to lose all your money.We have signed a sponsorship deal with Xapo bank.
I too have no iidea who they are, but the announcement on their own website and accompanying video is better than I have ever seen for any sponsor.
https://www.xapobank.com/en
Sick! I wonder if they’ll be front of shirt after the gambling ban comes in.
I must say that’s a courageous bit of marketing blurb.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 04, 2025, 10:17:04 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 04, 2025, 10:29:08 AM
Sick! I wonder if they’ll be front of shirt after the gambling ban comes in.
Their Xapo logo would look cool on our shirts.
Post by: Drummond on July 04, 2025, 10:31:15 AM
Post by: Toronto Villa on July 04, 2025, 02:13:55 PM
https://x.com/avfcofficial/status/1941122436252234088?s=46
Post by: aldridgeboy on July 04, 2025, 05:06:10 PM
https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1941166226618962025?s=46&t=jo4adbG13BgBUR97pIGxUA
Post by: Somniloquism on July 04, 2025, 05:08:58 PM
https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1941166962392047813
Quote
UEFA has imposed an unconditional €11m fine on #AVFC for breaching financial regulations.
Villa are fined €5m for failing to comply with football earnings rules from 22/23-23/24 and have been served an additional €6m sanction for breaching SCR in 2024.
Post by: Demitri_C on July 04, 2025, 05:10:09 PM
Crypto is a gamble, as much as roulette
it really isn't, for most people crypto is far worse.
Its both forms of gambling tbf
Post by: Drummond on July 04, 2025, 05:10:34 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on July 04, 2025, 05:11:40 PM
Post by: GarTomas on July 04, 2025, 05:12:44 PM
So, does that arrive in this or last financial year? Asking because surely that's another dent on FFP?
Which if we break we get fined…. So the rules exist to prevent clubs investing and competing. But if you do you get fined.
I’m sure NSWE will see this as an opportunity to spend baby spend to bastardise a similar phrase.
Post by: andyh on July 04, 2025, 05:20:40 PM
Post by: Steve67 on July 04, 2025, 05:25:32 PM
Post by: wolfman999 on July 04, 2025, 05:29:30 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 04, 2025, 05:38:25 PM
As we waited until early July, it is for 2025-26 and will be a hit into the wages/FFP for this new season.
FFP yes, but will it affect SCR? On the face of it, the latter would only be affected if the fine was added to squad related costs, or deducted from revenue.
Post by: LeonW on July 04, 2025, 06:03:50 PM
Post by: Ian. on July 04, 2025, 06:43:52 PM
I mean these rules are holding us back and a bloody nuisance. It’s not right is it?
Post by: SaddVillan on July 04, 2025, 07:03:06 PM
CHELSEA, ASTON VILLA HANDED UEFA FINES, SPENDING RESTRICTIONS FOR BREACHING FINANCIAL RULES
Chelsea and Aston Villa have been fined €31million and €11m respectively after breaching UEFA’s financial rules.
The Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) announced on Friday a series of disciplinary measures for clubs under monitoring for the 2024-25 season.
The unconditional figures are split into a fine for breaking the governing body’s football earnings rule (Chelsea €20m and Villa €5m) and another for being in breach of their squad cost rule (€11m and €6m).
The total fines for each club come to €91m and €26m, with the added conditional fine being part of a settlement agreement with UEFA that covers a four-year period for Chelsea and a three-year period for Villa.
Chelsea and Villa were found to have a squad cost ratio above 80 per cent for 2024 and were awarded fines proportionate to the size of the excess.
Both clubs will also limited in what they can spend with players on UEFA’s List A for club competitions having to hold a positive transfer balance, i.e. the cost of players added must not exceed those being removed.
Elsewhere, Barcelona were handed €15m in unconditional fines while Olympique Lyonnais (€12.5m), Besiktas (€900,000) Panathinaikos (€400,000) and Hajduk Split (€300,000) have also been sanctioned.
Both Chelsea and Villa sold their women’s teams to their respective parent holding companies – Chelsea to Blueco in May and Villa to V Sports at the end of June – in order to generate income and prevent losses that would have them breach the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
Unlike the Premier League, however, UEFA does not allow for the sale of tangible assets to sister or parent companies to count towards their Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
The Athletic reported in July that senior figures describe UEFA’s squad cost rules as the most serious challenge that faces Villa, with compliance a difficult task.
Aston Villa feel comfortable in their abilities to perform on a domestic and European front despite the sanctions.
The Athletic has approached Chelsea for comment although club sources in April, also speaking anonymously, noted that co-owners Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly were relaxed about their position.
In September 2022, UEFA charged eight clubs with failing to comply with FFP rules, including Ligue 1 champions Paris Saint-Germain, who were sanctioned with a €10m fine after failing to stay within spending limits.
At the same time PSG were hit with a financial sanction, the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) First Chamber, an independent panel within UEFA tasked with policing FFP, announced that Chelsea, along with multiple clubs competing in Europe in 2021-22, were going to be “monitored closely”.
Post by: AV82EC on July 04, 2025, 07:15:31 PM
Post by: AV82EC on July 04, 2025, 07:17:24 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 04, 2025, 07:17:35 PM
Post by: AV82EC on July 04, 2025, 07:19:25 PM
Did Chelsea get fined more than us because it's a second offence? If so, does that mean we can expect that sort of fine if we are caught being naughty again?
I’d imagine the numbers are bigger for Chelsea so that may have had an influence but I think you’re right on the second offence. And yep if we twat around with SCR again we’ll probably end up in a similar position .
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 04, 2025, 07:21:19 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on July 04, 2025, 07:27:10 PM
Quote
Both clubs will also limited in what they can spend with players on UEFA’s List A for club competitions having to hold a positive transfer balance, i.e. the cost of players added must not exceed those being removed.
Is that taking last years squad A as the baseline? Because neither club have currently registered a squad A, but Chelsea put a lot of their bomb squad players in it last season so might be screwed if so.
Post by: OCD on July 04, 2025, 07:38:45 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on July 04, 2025, 07:39:21 PM
Did Chelsea get fined more than us because it's a second offence? If so, does that mean we can expect that sort of fine if we are caught being naughty again?
I’d imagine the numbers are bigger for Chelsea so that may have had an influence but I think you’re right on the second offence. And yep if we twat around with SCR again we’ll probably end up in a similar position .
I understand that the size of the fines was linked to the amount by which each club transgresed.
Chelse exceeded their threshold to a greater extent than we did ours. Hence the larger fine.
Post by: London Villan on July 04, 2025, 08:03:07 PM
Post by: andyh on July 04, 2025, 08:23:59 PM
10’s and 10’s of millions are flowing into the UEFA coffers, all against poxy rules they have have made up.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 04, 2025, 08:27:46 PM
And the ‘fine money’., who gets that ? Who gets the benefit of it ?
'Grassroots football'.
Post by: IFWaters on July 04, 2025, 08:47:35 PM
The Club World Cup winners get about £100 million. Just sayin.And the ‘fine money’., who gets that ? Who gets the benefit of it ?
'Grassroots football'.
Post by: paul_e on July 04, 2025, 08:51:29 PM
Both clubs will also limited in what they can spend with players on UEFA’s List A for club competitions having to hold a positive transfer balance, i.e. the cost of players added must not exceed those being removed.
This line in particular can fuck right off, what sort of bullshit is that when you've got twats like Man City spending £300m and counting in this calendar year, fucking ladder pulling shite of the highest order.
Also, if the purpose of this is to reduce the risk of clubs going bust why are fines the solution? If we can afford to ignore the rules and pay a fucking fine then we're in a pretty fucking safe position.
Final moan, if this fine goes on our accounts for next season and increases the chance of a further breach at either UEFA or PL level then they can all get int he fucking bin with their bullshit rules designed to protect the status quo.
Post by: IFWaters on July 04, 2025, 08:56:00 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 04, 2025, 09:53:39 PM
Post by: DesBremner on July 04, 2025, 10:03:07 PM
Also does anyone know which financial year the women’s team sale was booked to? I assume it was 24/25 but anyone know for sure or is it a question of wait to see the accounts next March?
As an accountant I would say this a material post balance sheet event and as a contingent liability it should be in the accounts to 30.6.25 and not 2026
Post by: Somniloquism on July 04, 2025, 10:06:02 PM
Quote
Chelsea’s punishment leaves them under pressure to make sales this summer before their return to the Champions League. Uefa’s judgment included the detail that Chelsea would be forbidden from including new players in their squad for Europe next season and in 2026-27 unless they can show they have generated a cost saving with sale of players against acquisitions.
With ours it is just a fine.
Quote
Chelsea and Villa breached Uefa’s football earnings and squad-cost rules (SCR), the latter of which limits clubs operating in European competition to spending 80% of their revenue on player costs. Villa face being fined €5m for every year they breach financial rules. A new three-year cycle started in 2024-25.
Villa are confident they can absorb the fine and strengthen Unai Emery’s squad while agreeing to move in line with SCR. Villa and Uefa are understood to have agreed a “glide path” to meet their targets. Villa, who are also confident of avoiding a possible points deduction from the Premier League after moving to sell their women’s team to comply with financial rules, are adamant they do not need to sell key players.
Post by: andyh on July 04, 2025, 10:28:09 PM
Post by: Mellin on July 04, 2025, 11:02:25 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on July 04, 2025, 11:23:29 PM
CFCB First Chamber finalises the assessment of the financial sustainability requirements in the 2024/25 season | UEFA.com
https://share.google/cokWdI1yijHPNFD2g
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 04, 2025, 11:47:52 PM
Post by: brontebilly on July 04, 2025, 11:48:05 PM
It feels like we've been pegged over a barrel by the UEFA accountants.
Maybe a few hard questions for our own accountants too.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 04, 2025, 11:56:08 PM
Post by: Bent Neilsens Screamer on July 04, 2025, 11:58:32 PM
I think it’s safe to say there will be a couple of high profile departures as well. That could be why that Cash story was floating around this week. I’ll predict Martinez, Cash and Digne to go. Cheaper alternatives to replace them. Included in cheaper would I assume be chevalier.
I didn’t hear about Cash, was he linked with anyone in particular?
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 05, 2025, 12:04:42 AM
Post by: Bent Neilsens Screamer on July 05, 2025, 12:16:47 AM
There was a story saying we were trying to flog him but clubs were being put off by his £100k a week wages. I’ll add Bailey to the mix.
It would certainly make us think if Cash is on that much, he’s a decent player but it’s a position that I’d hope we’d try and improve. Saying that I thought Garcia was promising but he then never got a look in after a good start, Liverpool mistake aside.
Post by: andyh on July 05, 2025, 06:42:42 AM
“The two clubs could be prevented from registering new players for Uefa competitions for the forthcoming season unless they have a positive transfer balance by the end of the summer transfer window”
What does that mean ? Does it mean transfer fees, or salaries or a combination of both ?
Does it mean that if we want to sign 2 players for a total of £100m we need to sell players to the same value ?
Bloody hell, this is only our 3rd season back in Europe and we are being completely hamstrung.
The club is 100% debt free but basket cases like Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City get away with anything and everything.
Post by: IFWaters on July 05, 2025, 07:52:35 AM
Know Your Place.
Post by: andyh on July 05, 2025, 08:43:42 AM
Yet they have already spent ridiculous amounts on players this summer.
It now appears we need to sell players to the same value (or less) than those we bring in ?
The whole system is a bloody joke.
Post by: The Edge on July 05, 2025, 09:25:32 AM
Post by: JUAN PABLO on July 05, 2025, 11:16:59 AM
I've been out of the loop so just catching up. Did we sell the womens team to ourselves and if so for how much? And apparently we're selling the North Stand car park to ourselves according to my Villa hating nephew? That sounds like bollocks though tbh.
I think It was 55 million ..
Post by: Somniloquism on July 05, 2025, 11:46:20 AM
https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf
Code: [Select]
• The Club agrees to be subject to a sporting restriction and, as a consequence, may not
register any new player on its List A to UEFA club competitions unless the List A Transfer
Balance is positive.
• The List A Transfer Balance is defined as the difference between the cost savings from
outgoing players (“Cost savings”) and the new costs from incoming players (“New costs”) at
any applicable deadline for the Club’s submission of its List A.
• The sporting restriction is foreseen as follows:
• It unconditionally applies in the 2025/26 season;
• It conditionally applies in the 2026/27 season, if the Club has a Football Earnings
deficit in the reporting period 2025;
• It conditionally applies in the 2027/28 season, if the Club exceeds the 2026 Target;
and
• It conditionally applies in the 2028/29 season if the Club exceeds the Final Target
by less than EUR 20 million.
• Should the Club exceed any Target of the Settlement by more than EUR 10 million, but less
than EUR 20 million, the limitation shall be more restrictive, as the calculated Cost savings
from outgoing players shall be reduced by 50% (i.e., the New costs from incoming players
will have to be less than 50% of the Cost savings from outgoing players).
As I mentioned in another thread, there is no mention on whether they are taking list A from last year or not. For example of how it might affect us, we didn't have Malen on last years list and he cost £20 mil plus wages, but Rashford and Asensio only cost wages. Does their wage savings mean we can add Malen?
Post by: SaddVillan on July 05, 2025, 11:52:19 AM
In the States, NFL, MLB, NHL and the NBA operate in pretty closed systems. There's no relegation, squad numbers are limited and they all have salary caps and they don't pay transfer fees.
The draft system is designed to even out competitive advantage with the aim of having the most number of teams competing for play-off places for as long as possible to drive up spectator and media interest in the competitions, which in turn generates more income.
All merch income is pooled as is tv income. The only financial differentiator between clubs is gate receipts.
Thr owners know that there's only one prize per sport per season - so ultimately they're in it for the money. (The Glazers/Kroenke have brought this attitude to ManU/Arsenal - as long as the money rolls in, they're not actually bothered about not winning trophies).
Anyway PSR/SCR are designed to even out competition, but they clearly give huge advantages to those clubs with the biggest revenues- the likes of Villa, Toon, Everton, Athletic, Athletico, Dortmund, Leverkusen, Marseille, etc. are always going to be handicapped.
How long will it be, before the American owners across Europe start lobbying for a change to PSR and SCR and ask for SCR to be not a percentage of turnover, but a fixed amount of Euros/Pounds and for squad numbers to be limited - at senior and U21/U18 levels? Who knows, they might even decide to limit the level of borrowings?
Several consequences if this came to fruition:
Talent would be spread more evenly because clubs would have finite spending limits
It would stop clubs "buying" success
Competitive advantage would be linked to better scouting/recruitment/coaching
The owners would be able to make more money (and this is, I reckon is the only real driver by which these changes might come about).
A daydream?
For sure - but it would be nice to.imagine it happening.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 05, 2025, 12:44:26 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on July 05, 2025, 05:03:17 PM
Quote
slbsn
@slbsn
🤓 EXPLAINED: What Chelsea have agreed to by way of UEFA restrictions – tougher, longer and riskier than Villa. Ban in play in 2030 (🤪). Chelsea benefit from a self declared forthcoming FY2026 limit.
The simplified release of Chelsea’s UEFA settlement agreement isn’t simple at all but makes clear that the club has agreed to a four-year regime of financial constraints following a significant breach of the Football Earnings rule.
Chelsea have accepted that not only did they breach for the year ended 30 June 2024 but will, once audited and published, breach for 30 June 2025. In that context, the sanctions, although the biggest in UEFA history, look modest.
As with Aston Villa, UEFA’s Financial Sustainability Regulations (FSR) are now being partly enforced through the Football Earnings Rule UEFA’s answer to the Premier League’s PSR. But Chelsea’s breach was broader, deeper, and attracted a longer sanction window.
For those still focused on UEFA’s squad cost ratio (a soft salary cap), these Chelsea sanctions relate to the Football Earnings rule. This rule limits cumulative adjusted losses, disallows profits from related-party deals and asset sales, and introduces real sporting penalties including exclusion from European competitions.
UEFA allows certain deductions from operating losses, including:
- Youth, women’s and community football (NB: amazingly despite selling the women's team my understanding is that it remains part of the UEFA equation (known as the reporting perimeter)
- Stadium/training capex amortisation
- Non-cash charges like depreciation and player amortisation
For Chelsea these can total around €60m per annum.
These deductions mean headline (P&L) losses can be far higher than the Football Earnings cap but Chelsea are heavily exposed because their accounts include large related-party gains which UEFA has stripped out.
Chelsea’s agreement is longer than Villa’s (four years vs three), with higher fines, harsher restrictions, and two unconditional years of UEFA squad registration restrictions.
I concentrate here on the financial caps and the consequences of breach:
1⃣Confusingly named 2025 Target – Year ending 30 June 2026 (FY2026)
Cap: Whatever Chelsea submitted as the forecast loss in their business plan, is accepted by UEFA as their FY2026 limit. This figure has not been published but it is widely understood Chelsea were projecting a material loss.
However, the settlement states that this number now serves as the hard cap — and will be used to judge compliance for FY2026.
❌ If somehow Chelsea breach their own self stated cap they will pay up to €20m additional fine (on top of the €20m unconditional fine already payable).
❌❌If (somehow) they exceed the self stated cap by more than €20m, Chelsea face termination of the settlement agreement and a UEFA competition ban.
UEFA will not accept any deals like hotels or women’s team sale profits and will adjust for swaps and related party (say Strasbourg) deals. That means Chelsea’s UEFA Football Earnings deficit is significantly worse than the UK accounts imply.
2⃣Confusingly named 2026 Target – Year ending 30 June 2027 (FY2027)
Cap: €5m, extendable to €65m only if covered in full by equity contribution.
But the allowables such as youth, women's and community football and stadium/training capex amortisation will adjust the cap up to, in effect, an allowable £110m loss excluding profits from the sale of the Women's team or other tangible assets.
❌ If the FY2027 loss exceeds €65m: they will pay up to a €20m additional fine.
❌❌If the loss exceeds €85m+ this will lead to an automatic ban from UEFA and a ripping up of the settlement agreement.
3⃣Confusingly named 2027 Target – Year ending 30 June 2028 (FY2028)
Cap: €0m – a full break-even year but extendable as below.
Only if Chelsea “overperform” in FY2027 (i.e. stay well below the €65m ceiling) can this cap be increased — and then only up to a combined €60m for FY2027 + FY2028. That means if Chelsea lose €50m in FY2027, they may be allowed to lose €10m in FY2028.
But if they breach FY2027 by more than €55m, the FY2028 cap becomes a hard €0m and the risk of cumulative failure becomes serious.
As before:
❌ If in FY2028 Chelsea breach this limit, they will pay up to a €20m additional fine.
❌❌If the loss exceeds this limit plus €20m, this will lead to an automatic ban from UEFA.
4⃣ Final Target - Year ending 30 June 2029 (FY2029)
By the end of FY2029 and therefore for assessment in Spring 2030 (TWENTY THIRTY!), Chelsea must have demonstrated full compliance with UEFA’s Football Earnings rule- not just for one year, but on a cumulative three-year basis (ie testing FY2027, FY2028 and FY2029).
This is the culmination of the 4-year Settlement Agreement signed with UEFA. UEFA’s final test isn’t based on a single season, it reverts to the 3 year test (like PSR). Chelsea will be required to meet the current €60m, 3 year cap that all other qualifiers will have to meet every season. This settlement gives Chelsea breathing space for the next 3 years including a year where they are being tested vs their own self set limit.
❌ If Chelsea breach this final limit they trigger an extra (up to) €20m fine.
❌❌If Chelsea makes losses over this limit plus €20m ie €80m on total after allowables, UEFA will terminate the agreement and ban Chelsea from European competition in 2030/31 season 🤣🤪.
But to breach the 3 year losses for FY2027, FY2028 and FY2029 would translate to a P&L loss before allowables of something like €280m-300m (3x €60-70m plus €80m). This should be achievable by Chelsea if they eventually stop buying players. Either way, it is so far into the future that they will not worry too much about it now.
https://x.com/slbsn/status/1941521456938012936
Post by: Toronto Villa on July 05, 2025, 05:09:52 PM
Post by: Dante Lavelli on July 05, 2025, 05:29:36 PM
Chelsea have made something like £55M from the Club World Cup.
Let’s hope it knackers out all the teams involved and they have shocking seasons.
Post by: Somniloquism on July 05, 2025, 05:32:33 PM
Post by: SaddVillan on July 05, 2025, 05:53:44 PM
Seems they are buying a new team for the new season anyway. (albeit some have also played in the CWC.)
The Premier League website lists 42 players in their first team squad.
Post by: placeforparks on July 07, 2025, 10:27:44 AM
Chelsea have made something like £55M from the Club World Cup.
Let’s hope it knackers out all the teams involved and they have shocking seasons.
pep has already said that he thinks his squad will struggle in december/jan on account of this competition and what it has done for their pre-season.
that's not him getting excuses in early, i think that is a genuine concern for his players welfare. and then a potentially really draining world cup in summer 2026.
Post by: algy on July 07, 2025, 10:31:57 AM
Yeah, I'd be inclined to agree with Guardiola there. I think the intensity that football is played at now, the quantity of games, ... I don't think it's at all healthy or sensible for the players involved.Chelsea have made something like £55M from the Club World Cup.
Let’s hope it knackers out all the teams involved and they have shocking seasons.
pep has already said that he thinks his squad will struggle in december/jan on account of this competition and what it has done for their pre-season.
that's not him getting excuses in early, i think that is a genuine concern for his players welfare. and then a potentially really draining world cup in summer 2026.
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2025, 10:51:16 AM
Chelsea have made something like £55M from the Club World Cup.
Let’s hope it knackers out all the teams involved and they have shocking seasons.
pep has already said that he thinks his squad will struggle in december/jan on account of this competition and what it has done for their pre-season.
that's not him getting excuses in early, i think that is a genuine concern for his players welfare. and then a potentially really draining world cup in summer 2026.
There was nothing stopping him from sending the players who played through the end of last season off on holiday and using the likes of Grealish, Bobb, Reis, Khusanov, McAtee, Rodri etc.
They have big squads for this reason. The whiny little bell-end.
Post by: The Edge on July 07, 2025, 11:06:36 AM
This Club World Cup bullshit is all about one thing. Money. I dont know but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a clause in the contract that says that they must include all their top players in the squad. They want the names that the Americans will know in order to sell match tickets and tv subscriptions and to satisfy the sponsors.Chelsea have made something like £55M from the Club World Cup.
Let’s hope it knackers out all the teams involved and they have shocking seasons.
pep has already said that he thinks his squad will struggle in december/jan on account of this competition and what it has done for their pre-season.
that's not him getting excuses in early, i think that is a genuine concern for his players welfare. and then a potentially really draining world cup in summer 2026.
There was nothing stopping him from sending the players who played through the end of last season off on holiday and using the likes of Grealish, Bobb, Reis, Khusanov, McAtee, Rodri etc.
They have big squads for this reason. The whiny little bell-end.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on July 07, 2025, 11:10:09 AM
This Club World Cup bullshit is all about one thing. Money. I dont know but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a clause in the contract that says that they must include all their top players in the squad. They want the names that the Americans will know in order to sell match tickets and tv subscriptions and to satisfy the sponsors.Chelsea have made something like £55M from the Club World Cup.
Let’s hope it knackers out all the teams involved and they have shocking seasons.
pep has already said that he thinks his squad will struggle in december/jan on account of this competition and what it has done for their pre-season.
that's not him getting excuses in early, i think that is a genuine concern for his players welfare. and then a potentially really draining world cup in summer 2026.
There was nothing stopping him from sending the players who played through the end of last season off on holiday and using the likes of Grealish, Bobb, Reis, Khusanov, McAtee, Rodri etc.
They have big squads for this reason. The whiny little bell-end.
We should arrange a pre season friendly tournament where our owners offer 100 million to the winners , we play Walsall over 2 legs
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 07, 2025, 11:17:54 AM
Post by: ozzjim on July 07, 2025, 11:21:22 AM
I had this conversation with a Forest fan last week. What's stopping Villa, Newcastle, Forest etc, putting on a pre season tournament and the owners sticking x amount in each as prize money. I assume there will be a premier League and Uefa rule about recognised competitions, but it kind of made more sense than selling young players between each club to comply with rules.
Post by: Somniloquism on July 07, 2025, 11:26:53 AM
There was nothing stopping him from sending the players who played through the end of last season off on holiday and using the likes of Grealish, Bobb, Reis, Khusanov, McAtee, Rodri etc.
They have big squads for this reason. The whiny little bell-end.
FIFA rules might have. Of course how "strongest" is defined is a legal question, but they had it in the rules that all clubs must field their strongest squads / strongest teams available or be sanctioned.
Post by: OCD on July 07, 2025, 11:27:28 AM
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2025, 11:30:53 AM
What happens when we bottle it and lose?
I had this conversation with a Forest fan last week. What's stopping Villa, Newcastle, Forest etc, putting on a pre season tournament and the owners sticking x amount in each as prize money. I assume there will be a premier League and Uefa rule about recognised competitions, but it kind of made more sense than selling young players between each club to comply with rules.
£100m to the winner, £99m to the runner-up. £98m and £97m for third / fourth place.
Post by: ozzjim on July 07, 2025, 11:42:52 AM
What happens when we bottle it and lose?
I had this conversation with a Forest fan last week. What's stopping Villa, Newcastle, Forest etc, putting on a pre season tournament and the owners sticking x amount in each as prize money. I assume there will be a premier League and Uefa rule about recognised competitions, but it kind of made more sense than selling young players between each club to comply with rules.
£100m to the winner, £99m to the runner-up. £98m and £97m for third / fourth place.
Pretty much our thoughts. Plus a prize on entry fee. It must have already been looked at and discounted as a viable workaround though.
Post by: Gareth on July 07, 2025, 11:44:56 AM
What happens when we bottle it and lose?I think the issue is that this summer it seems we were the only ones with PSR issues….last summer there was clearly Chelsea, Everton, ourselves and a few others which led to transfers like Dobbin -> Irogbubam / Maatsen-> Kellyman to get done
I had this conversation with a Forest fan last week. What's stopping Villa, Newcastle, Forest etc, putting on a pre season tournament and the owners sticking x amount in each as prize money. I assume there will be a premier League and Uefa rule about recognised competitions, but it kind of made more sense than selling young players between each club to comply with rules.
Post by: OCD on July 07, 2025, 12:35:39 PM
Post by: Gareth on July 07, 2025, 01:10:15 PM
We wouldn't have been the only ones if Chelsea hadn't sold their hotels and women's team.
Indeed…thankfully we followed suit rather than selling our good players to comply.
Post by: LeonW on July 07, 2025, 03:37:58 PM
What happens when we bottle it and lose?
I had this conversation with a Forest fan last week. What's stopping Villa, Newcastle, Forest etc, putting on a pre season tournament and the owners sticking x amount in each as prize money. I assume there will be a premier League and Uefa rule about recognised competitions, but it kind of made more sense than selling young players between each club to comply with rules.
Interesting idea.
Post by: Smirker on July 08, 2025, 09:31:40 PM
Didn't Villa just get fined? So it's OK when Villa do it but its not OK when Man City do it?
Tried to explain why admitting to doing 35mph in a 30 zone and accepting the fine is not the same as planning to circumvent income laws 30 odd times over many years via money laundering then denying it, withholding the evidence, refusing to cooperate and then going on the counter attack.
Was a waste of time.
Post by: Rory on July 09, 2025, 01:14:32 AM
Arsenal fan said to me:
Didn't Villa just get fined? So it's OK when Villa do it but its not OK when Man City do it?
Tried to explain why admitting to doing 35mph in a 30 zone and accepting the fine is not the same as planning to circumvent income laws 30 odd times over many years via money laundering then denying it, withholding the evidence, refusing to cooperate and then going on the counter attack.
Was a waste of time.
'Arsenal fan', enough said.
The only time I want to hear from them is when they're crying about how they would've won the league if only it ended in January.
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 09, 2025, 01:23:58 AM
Post by: wince on July 09, 2025, 08:13:15 AM
Arsenal fan said to me:Should have just called them a ****** and keyed their car and salted their earth
Didn't Villa just get fined? So it's OK when Villa do it but its not OK when Man City do it?
Tried to explain why admitting to doing 35mph in a 30 zone and accepting the fine is not the same as planning to circumvent income laws 30 odd times over many years via money laundering then denying it, withholding the evidence, refusing to cooperate and then going on the counter attack.
Was a waste of time.
Post by: DB on July 09, 2025, 11:44:53 AM
Post by: thick_mike on July 09, 2025, 12:38:58 PM
Apologies if already covered, but do we know how much revenue the club will make from these summer concerts at Villa Park?
£100m
Post by: Exeter 77 on July 09, 2025, 12:53:19 PM
I've thought about taking this sort of thing on further with individual players to sort out SCR. I know Man City are accused of hiding payments but what is to stop the owners setting up companies which have nothing to do with the club and employing players as 'brand ambassadors'. A big chunk of their wage would be from this work and not from playing football. It feels like it should be against the rule and possibly even illegal but what would stop it?What happens when we bottle it and lose?
I had this conversation with a Forest fan last week. What's stopping Villa, Newcastle, Forest etc, putting on a pre season tournament and the owners sticking x amount in each as prize money. I assume there will be a premier League and Uefa rule about recognised competitions, but it kind of made more sense than selling young players between each club to comply with rules.
£100m to the winner, £99m to the runner-up. £98m and £97m for third / fourth place.
Post by: Rotterdam on July 09, 2025, 01:08:55 PM
Post by: john e on July 09, 2025, 01:10:15 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on July 09, 2025, 01:27:28 PM
Didn't Saracens RFC try something similar and got relagated?
And is some of the 115 charges when Citeh allegedly did it for their managers.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on July 09, 2025, 01:30:22 PM
Post by: john e on July 09, 2025, 04:54:23 PM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Cost of living
Post by: Smirker on July 09, 2025, 05:29:12 PM
Arsenal fan said to me:Should have just called them a ****** and keyed their car and salted their earth
Didn't Villa just get fined? So it's OK when Villa do it but its not OK when Man City do it?
Tried to explain why admitting to doing 35mph in a 30 zone and accepting the fine is not the same as planning to circumvent income laws 30 odd times over many years via money laundering then denying it, withholding the evidence, refusing to cooperate and then going on the counter attack.
Was a waste of time.
Would have done if I didn't know him.
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
It was 115 but they've got 15 more since the initial charges came out. 130 now.
Post by: Rigadon on July 09, 2025, 06:15:03 PM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Cost of living
Chortle.
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 09, 2025, 08:52:57 PM
Arsenal fan said to me:Should have just called them a ****** and keyed their car and salted their earth
Didn't Villa just get fined? So it's OK when Villa do it but its not OK when Man City do it?
Tried to explain why admitting to doing 35mph in a 30 zone and accepting the fine is not the same as planning to circumvent income laws 30 odd times over many years via money laundering then denying it, withholding the evidence, refusing to cooperate and then going on the counter attack.
Was a waste of time.
Would have done if I didn't know him.I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
It was 115 but they've got 15 more since the initial charges came out. 130 now.
I bet that made them shit thier pants...might as well add another 100 for all the good it will do.
Post by: tomd2103 on July 11, 2025, 11:00:36 AM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wlll be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
Post by: Dave on July 11, 2025, 11:07:00 AM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
Post by: Crown Hill on July 11, 2025, 11:54:03 AM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
To save legal costs the Premier League doesn’t have?
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 11, 2025, 12:02:34 PM
Post by: DB on July 11, 2025, 12:13:02 PM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
To save legal costs the Premier League doesn’t have?
Alos, damage to the PL brand. If a team who has won everything over passed 10-15 years has been found guilty of cheating* then where does that leave the PL as a competition and the 'best league in the world'.
*pending
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 11, 2025, 01:26:37 PM
not doing anything will create the same impression.I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
To save legal costs the Premier League doesn’t have?
Alos, damage to the PL brand. If a team who has won everything over passed 10-15 years has been found guilty of cheating* then where does that leave the PL as a competition and the 'best league in the world'.
*pending
Eventually even the Italians worked out you could not have the Juventus tail wagging the dog.
I keep coming back to the point that there are some very powerful clubs that will want to see Citeh punished appropriately.
If the PL do not get this right it moves the next break away closer.
Post by: Mister E on July 11, 2025, 03:57:31 PM
Post by: DB on July 11, 2025, 05:03:25 PM
not doing anything will create the same impression.I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
To save legal costs the Premier League doesn’t have?
Alos, damage to the PL brand. If a team who has won everything over passed 10-15 years has been found guilty of cheating* then where does that leave the PL as a competition and the 'best league in the world'.
*pending
Eventually even the Italians worked out you could not have the Juventus tail wagging the dog.
I keep coming back to the point that there are some very powerful clubs that will want to see Citeh punished appropriately.
If the PL do not get this right it moves the next break away closer.
If it came to it (big if) and all the comps they won are void during the period in question would be much worse IMO.
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 11, 2025, 05:23:47 PM
Fine
Transfer embargo
Points deduction
Any of the above or a combination therein.
Relegation is extremely unlikely as is voiding their wins.
Post by: Hookeysmith on July 11, 2025, 05:30:57 PM
Surely they have had an unfair advantage over all the others for years and seemingly continue to spend a lot of money, making them even harder to stop on the pitch, so why do they not voice their opinions?
Do they have fears that their own houses may get looked at?
Post by: DB on July 11, 2025, 05:33:36 PM
That won’t happen DB.
Fine
Transfer embargo
Points deduction
Any of the above or a combination therein.
Relegation is extremely unlikely as is voiding their wins.
Yeah, agree for reasons mentioned. A slap on the wrist in about 10 hrs when everyone has lost interest.
Post by: john2710 on July 11, 2025, 05:36:49 PM
That would open the door for everyone to break the rules & then take the PL to court.I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
To save legal costs the Premier League doesn’t have?
Post by: Crown Hill on July 11, 2025, 05:50:23 PM
That would open the door for everyone to break the rules & then take the PL to court.I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
To save legal costs the Premier League doesn’t have?
Yep it’s called Lawfare
Post by: paul_e on July 11, 2025, 07:38:15 PM
I might be naive, but why have the other 18 teams in the premiership not demanded that the book is thrown at them?
Surely they have had an unfair advantage over all the others for years and seemingly continue to spend a lot of money, making them even harder to stop on the pitch, so why do they not voice their opinions?
Do they have fears that their own houses may get looked at?
They might have, still has to follow a legal process though.
But, it is the fact that the EPL will not win a legal marathon with Citeh, and the surprise is that some compromise has not yet been reached to give both parties a way out of what appears to be a stalemate.
I've said before but I think there will be a compromise announced fairly soon and it will come with a fine and a transfer ban, £300m+ net spend in 2025 certainly suggests they are planning around the possibility.
Post by: tomd2103 on July 11, 2025, 11:52:51 PM
I keep seeing references to 130 charges more recently.
Nothing is going to happen is it really? They will delay and delay until they think people wl be past caring and then they will find a way they can let them off with minimal punishment. It stinks to be quite honest.
"They" is the other nineteen clubs in the Premier League. Why would "they" want to "find a way" to let Man City off with minimal punishment?
Is it Dave or is it another body that will have a final say.
Post by: algy on July 14, 2025, 03:56:22 PM
From what I can gather:
- We have to stay within the PSR rules (so have to sell someone to keep the income stream going?) [PSR]
- We have to stay within the UEFA rules, which means keeping our wages below a certain amount (which means we need to reduce our wage bill from what it is now?) [UEFA competition rules]
- We can't spend more on players than we bring in through transfer fees [UEFA penalty thing]
Is that right?
Post by: Somniloquism on July 14, 2025, 04:07:26 PM
Chelsea also have the same issue with the transfers balance and have bought £200mil of players and sold 10mil so far, or £60mil with Madueke when that deal gets done.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 14, 2025, 05:47:11 PM
What's the deal with all of this now?
From what I can gather:
- We have to stay within the PSR rules (so have to sell someone to keep the income stream going?) [PSR]
- We have to stay within the UEFA rules, which means keeping our wages below a certain amount (which means we need to reduce our wage bill from what it is now?) [UEFA competition rules]
- We can't spend more on players than we bring in through transfer fees [UEFA penalty thing]
Is that right?
No, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
- not allowed to do Twitter 'reveal' videos for new signings
- only allowed players with initial of first name from first half of the alphabet
Post by: Chris Smith on July 14, 2025, 06:03:18 PM
What's the deal with all of this now?
From what I can gather:
- We have to stay within the PSR rules (so have to sell someone to keep the income stream going?) [PSR]
- We have to stay within the UEFA rules, which means keeping our wages below a certain amount (which means we need to reduce our wage bill from what it is now?) [UEFA competition rules]
- We can't spend more on players than we bring in through transfer fees [UEFA penalty thing]
Is that right?
No, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
- not allowed to do Twitter 'reveal' videos for new signings
- only allowed players with initial of first name from first half of the alphabet
You forgot:
- only sign players born in a leap year.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 14, 2025, 06:07:04 PM
No, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
Wouldn't surprise me, given the discrimination we constantly face.
Post by: Beard82 on July 14, 2025, 06:32:01 PM
I feel your pain. One day our time will comeNo, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
Wouldn't surprise me, given the discrimination we constantly face.
Post by: eamonn on July 14, 2025, 06:42:18 PM
What's the deal with all of this now?
From what I can gather:
- We have to stay within the PSR rules (so have to sell someone to keep the income stream going?) [PSR]
- We have to stay within the UEFA rules, which means keeping our wages below a certain amount (which means we need to reduce our wage bill from what it is now?) [UEFA competition rules]
- We can't spend more on players than we bring in through transfer fees [UEFA penalty thing]
Is that right?
No, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
- not allowed to do Twitter 'reveal' videos for new signings
- only allowed players with initial of first name from first half of the alphabet
You forgot:
- only sign players born in a leap year.
On Leap Day actually, only Feb 29th babbies may apply.
Post by: paul_e on July 14, 2025, 06:43:19 PM
I feel your pain. One day our time will comeNo, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
Wouldn't surprise me, given the discrimination we constantly face.
With climate change you'll be waiting a while (in the shade)!!
Post by: LeeB on July 14, 2025, 06:47:43 PM
I feel your pain. One day our time will comeNo, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
Wouldn't surprise me, given the discrimination we constantly face.
A cloudy day.
Post by: tomd2103 on July 15, 2025, 01:12:29 PM
What's the deal with all of this now?
From what I can gather:
- We have to stay within the PSR rules (so have to sell someone to keep the income stream going?) [PSR]
- We have to stay within the UEFA rules, which means keeping our wages below a certain amount (which means we need to reduce our wage bill from what it is now?) [UEFA competition rules]
- We can't spend more on players than we bring in through transfer fees [UEFA penalty thing]
Is that right?
It might sound a little extreme, but it does beg the question of whether it is worth entering the Conference League or even the Europa League if you are going to be that badly hamstrung by the financial restrictions.
Post by: Mister E on July 15, 2025, 01:20:56 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on July 15, 2025, 02:55:43 PM
Post by: jwarry on July 15, 2025, 03:11:13 PM
C£teh have cut another big sponsorship deal - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jul/15/manchester-city-puma-deal-worth-at-least-1bn
I assume Thats £1bn over 10 years so booked at £100m per year? What happens if Puma go bust?
Post by: aj2k77 on July 15, 2025, 03:12:39 PM
You spend the max amount of money to make the leap to get a sniff at it and then they fully kick in and you have to cut your cloth differently to the Sky 6 and sell as they continue to buy without limit.
As the rules are, no one will consistently infiltrate the top 4, it will be a cycle of clubs when they get FFP wiggle room who take turns having a 1 year shot.
Post by: Mister E on July 15, 2025, 03:12:51 PM
it's over 10 years.C£teh have cut another big sponsorship deal - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jul/15/manchester-city-puma-deal-worth-at-least-1bnI assume Thats £1bn over 10 years so booked at £100m per year? What happens if Puma go bust?
If Puma go bust, another apparel company would presumably cut a deal with Citeh.
Post by: thick_mike on July 15, 2025, 05:00:48 PM
What's the deal with all of this now?
From what I can gather:
- We have to stay within the PSR rules (so have to sell someone to keep the income stream going?) [PSR]
- We have to stay within the UEFA rules, which means keeping our wages below a certain amount (which means we need to reduce our wage bill from what it is now?) [UEFA competition rules]
- We can't spend more on players than we bring in through transfer fees [UEFA penalty thing]
Is that right?
No, there are also:
- not allowed to sign left handed players
- no gingers
- not allowed to do Twitter 'reveal' videos for new signings
- only allowed players with initial of first name from first half of the alphabet
You forgot:
- only sign players born in a leap year.
On Leap Day actually, only Feb 29th babbies may apply.
Ferran Torres back on then?
Post by: VinnieChase84 on July 22, 2025, 04:44:02 PM
If its any comfort psr isnt this summer/june anywhere near as bad as it was last year! Plus we have a big loss year falling out of calculations this coming season and being replaced by our highest revenue one
Issue for us is we WANT to continue to bring in new and refresh squad. Its in doing that which means we have to sell.
IF we had wanted to then outside of selling a few "squad players/loanees" in june - then we could have kept the entire same team/sold no one and bought no one
Still the state of play as posted back here.
Our dominoes are waiting to fall depending on exits. Bailey, Emi, Maybe JJ
As said, would could keep squad as it was pretty much. If no big sales happen then I’d expect a few loans to plug some gaps etc
Frustrating but it’s where we are
Post by: PaulWinch again on July 22, 2025, 06:03:35 PM
Post by: VinnieChase84 on July 22, 2025, 06:07:40 PM
Squad as is isn’t going to cut it - unless those loans were serious players.
Agreed. Miles off it and an injury away in a couple of areas from being totally screwed
Post by: ChicagoLion on July 22, 2025, 08:51:45 PM
Post by: DB on July 29, 2025, 09:03:08 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 29, 2025, 05:20:03 PM
Post by: DC1874 on July 29, 2025, 05:42:16 PM
Post by: N'ZMAV on July 29, 2025, 05:42:23 PM
Words from a Geordie... https://x.com/thekickofftg/status/1949883431329919141?t=cQqwCs8TixGVRsFekkZ5aQ&s=19spot on, but, he probably wouldn't be moaning if Isak wasn't on the way out, or his owners had no money, he's bound to be frustrated sa NUFC have rich owners who now have their hands tied
Post by: DB on July 29, 2025, 06:07:44 PM
Words from a Geordie... https://x.com/thekickofftg/status/1949883431329919141?t=cQqwCs8TixGVRsFekkZ5aQ&s=19spot on, but, he probably wouldn't be moaning if Isak wasn't on the way out, or his owners had no money, he's bound to be frustrated sa NUFC have rich owners who now have their hands tied
Yeah, you cannot have Newcastles owners being able to spend what they could but then you have the top 4 sewn up with the money they have spent.
Post by: itbrvilla on July 29, 2025, 06:58:49 PM
Post by: Ads on July 29, 2025, 07:37:59 PM
Words from a Geordie... https://x.com/thekickofftg/status/1949883431329919141?t=cQqwCs8TixGVRsFekkZ5aQ&s=19spot on, but, he probably wouldn't be moaning if Isak wasn't on the way out, or his owners had no money, he's bound to be frustrated sa NUFC have rich owners who now have their hands tied
Yeah, you cannot have Newcastles owners being able to spend what they could but then you have the top 4 sewn up with the money they have spent.
So would we.
Man City
Geordies
Us
Just hosing cash.
Post by: VillaTim on July 29, 2025, 07:50:33 PM
The FFP needs to stay
Post by: VILLA MOLE on July 29, 2025, 07:58:36 PM
Scrap the FFP and Newcastle win everything forever while they are owned by Saudi Arabia.
The FFP needs to stay
[/quote
‘Limit the players that each team can purchase.would be a start
Post by: Somniloquism on July 29, 2025, 08:27:20 PM
Post by: DB on July 29, 2025, 08:29:29 PM
Words from a Geordie... https://x.com/thekickofftg/status/1949883431329919141?t=cQqwCs8TixGVRsFekkZ5aQ&s=19spot on, but, he probably wouldn't be moaning if Isak wasn't on the way out, or his owners had no money, he's bound to be frustrated sa NUFC have rich owners who now have their hands tied
Yeah, you cannot have Newcastles owners being able to spend what they could but then you have the top 4 sewn up with the money they have spent.
So would we.
Man City
Geordies
Us
Just hosing cash.
Newcastle could blow us and City out of the water, their potential wealth is ridiculous. They could pay what they want and pay the wages without breaking sweat.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on July 29, 2025, 08:36:33 PM
‘Limit the players that each team can purchase.would be a start
Yep, that could apply across the board from kids, reserves, first team squads.
At youth level, clubs can almost guarantee success by spreading their net so wide, and stockpiling youth players. It’s simply a numbers game.
If they were limited to say 30 per age group then players would end up at other clubs and the quality within the pyramid would be distributed more evenly.
Post by: Rigadon on July 29, 2025, 08:36:47 PM
Words from a Geordie... https://x.com/thekickofftg/status/1949883431329919141?t=cQqwCs8TixGVRsFekkZ5aQ&s=19spot on, but, he probably wouldn't be moaning if Isak wasn't on the way out, or his owners had no money, he's bound to be frustrated sa NUFC have rich owners who now have their hands tied
Yeah, you cannot have Newcastles owners being able to spend what they could but then you have the top 4 sewn up with the money they have spent.
So would we.
Man City
Geordies
Us
Just hosing cash.
Newcastle could blow us and City out of the water, their potential wealth is ridiculous. They could pay what they want and pay the wages without breaking sweat.
So a bit like now then in real terms with the clubs who made hay while the sun shone (and. The rules didn’t apply).
Post by: DB on July 29, 2025, 09:15:59 PM
Words from a Geordie... https://x.com/thekickofftg/status/1949883431329919141?t=cQqwCs8TixGVRsFekkZ5aQ&s=19spot on, but, he probably wouldn't be moaning if Isak wasn't on the way out, or his owners had no money, he's bound to be frustrated sa NUFC have rich owners who now have their hands tied
Yeah, you cannot have Newcastles owners being able to spend what they could but then you have the top 4 sewn up with the money they have spent.
So would we.
Man City
Geordies
Us
Just hosing cash.
Newcastle could blow us and City out of the water, their potential wealth is ridiculous. They could pay what they want and pay the wages without breaking sweat.
So a bit like now then in real terms with the clubs who made hay while the sun shone (and. The rules didn’t apply).
…and now it’s a closed shop.
Post by: VillaTim on July 29, 2025, 09:19:48 PM
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been any "loans" from the Saudi teams to Newcastle.If Isaac goes to Saudi that's a conflict of interest/ insider trading .
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 29, 2025, 10:04:13 PM
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been any "loans" from the Saudi teams to Newcastle.If Isaac goes to Saudi that's a conflict of interest/ insider trading .
Why?
They can sell him to Liverpool for a huge amount of money, there's no need to engage in any skullduggery with SA.
Post by: Somniloquism on July 29, 2025, 10:24:24 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 30, 2025, 08:52:04 AM
Post by: Monty on July 30, 2025, 09:06:57 AM
There needs to be some form of spending control. Just not this form. There is nothing wrong with the concept, it is the execution that is wrong.
Indeed. We like to imagine that a total bonfire of spending controls would result in a Villa golden age, but it would actually just free up Man City and Newcastle to outspend everyone by such orders of magnitude it would turn the league into the SPL.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on July 30, 2025, 09:09:40 AM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 30, 2025, 09:19:36 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 30, 2025, 09:37:12 AM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on July 30, 2025, 09:57:51 AM
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 30, 2025, 09:58:38 AM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on July 30, 2025, 10:04:32 AM
Post by: Villatillidie25 on July 30, 2025, 10:07:11 AM
The biggest problem with it is that it simply hasn’t moved with the times. They’ve still got caps in place since 2012. Prices have moved on. Which is why I though Nas’s suggestion that the cap moves up to £135m was a sensible one.
All that would do would push up the cost of being in the PL and widen the gap to the Championship further.
If the controls are meant to ensure clubs remain stable then there need to be controls on liquidity and leverage, not just an arbitrary loss value.
SCR is better imo but it still results in the haves pulling up the drawbridge and the have nots scrabbling around outside.
Post by: cdbearsfan on July 30, 2025, 10:07:30 AM
It can happen in the US because there's little to no competition for their main sports. If the PL did anything like salary caps etc then players would just fuck off to a different league for more money.
Agreed. Which is why we need international socialism.
Post by: Monty on July 30, 2025, 10:07:38 AM
It happens in the most selfish and anti-sharing country in the world.
And yet Zenit still win almost every year.
Post by: paul_e on July 30, 2025, 10:51:00 AM
It can happen in the US because there's little to no competition for their main sports. If the PL did anything like salary caps etc then players would just fuck off to a different league for more money.
I don't think this would happen, mostly because the biggest driver of wage inflation in football is the premier league. If you look at where a cap would come in and the likelihood is something around £150-200m. There are about 10-15 clubs in Europe that would be impacted by that and half of them are in England. There may be a small trickle of players to SA or thge US but that's no different to now really.
In terms of spending outside wage caps I agree with others that the solution should be mostly focused on squad size limits and registrations.
Post by: pelty on July 30, 2025, 06:29:58 PM
It can happen in the US because there's little to no competition for their main sports. If the PL did anything like salary caps etc then players would just fuck off to a different league for more money.
Does FIFA as a body have the authority to impose a universal cap?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on July 30, 2025, 06:38:22 PM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on July 30, 2025, 06:54:13 PM
Does FIFA as a body have the authority to impose a universal cap?
No, you'll have to wait for the New World Order and globalist government before we get that.
Post by: IFWaters on July 30, 2025, 07:19:54 PM
That wouldn't limit the individual salaries but put some limit on what clubs can work with. I think this kind of limit would give teams like Villa an opportunity
Post by: LeeS on July 30, 2025, 07:27:23 PM
…..I think this kind of limit would give teams like Villa an opportunity
Which is precisely why no big club will allow it.
Post by: IFWaters on July 30, 2025, 07:30:06 PM
There's got to be a court case worth having based on restraint of trade surely? The rules are rigged.…..I think this kind of limit would give teams like Villa an opportunity
Which is precisely why no big club will allow it.
Post by: VILLA MOLE on July 30, 2025, 07:55:10 PM
What about a budget cap not a salary cap across the top leagues in Europe? Eg you can't spend more than £250 million in wages for your 25 man squad, that's average of £10 million per player or 200k per week.
That wouldn't limit the individual salaries but put some limit on what clubs can work with. I think this kind of limit would give teams like Villa an opportunity
Stop teams stock piling would help balance things out abit also
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 30, 2025, 08:14:20 PM
There's got to be a court case worth having based on restraint of trade surely? The rules are rigged.…..I think this kind of limit would give teams like Villa an opportunity
Which is precisely why no big club will allow it.
Yes, against what you suggested, which is exactly what would be called restraint of trade.
Post by: paul_e on July 30, 2025, 08:46:38 PM
Post by: Dave on July 30, 2025, 10:01:29 PM
It does not.
And even if did, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't take long before the reality of "Gianni Infantino and FIFA are now in charge of the day-to-day running of domestic leagues instead of national associations running them" became not as good a thing as people first thought it might be.
Post by: IFWaters on July 30, 2025, 10:15:06 PM
How would a spending cap on the club be considered a restraint of trade any more than the current regulations from UEFA of limiting to 70% of turnover?Sorry I meant the current system is a restraint of trade. I think Sawiris has said something like that but decided not to pursue it further.
The current system effectively limits who can win whereas a cap on club spending would give everyone an option to spend up to the same amount to try to win. Seems fairer to me which is obviously why it isn't going to happen.
Post by: brontebilly on July 30, 2025, 10:40:36 PM
- nation states/oligarchs buying titles (noble intention to restrict it but Man City and others already have bought their way to a significant advantage here. Royal Madrid with their debt writedowns, Barca can't register any players each summer until they miraculously can at the last minute). The game is cooked in favour of the bigger clubs. To create an equal playing field, clubs new to CL football such as ourselves and Newcastle should be given some kind of allowance. We gave PSG their biggest test by far in the CL last season and have to sell to buy this summer instead
- academy farms incentives - no point whinging about Chelsea or City as we are guilty of this here too. Ideally you would severely limit the number of academy players allowed to be registered at each club. The current system might make "homegrown" players wealthier but it damages their development. What did Louis Barry gain bar money from his time with us? Enzo B??
- accounting value of players - I suspect this is the one the authorities will look to change after some frankly ludicrous business we got up to with Chelsea and Everton last summer. It has been going on for years fair enough but the deals for likes of Dobbin and Kellyman obviously stunk. It reduces the incentive for clubs to move on unwanted players and it creates an increased incentive for players to run down contracts. This is contrary to player and club development. Maybe some kind of independent panel could be setup to arbitrate on the value of a player for book value purposes.
Post by: LeeS on July 31, 2025, 08:56:39 AM
It wouldn’t disadvantage any poorer clubs in the league either, as they are already paying way below the big clubs. So they should vote for it to stop the gap growing.
The only people who would object are the current Sky6 who would see the gap between them and us shrink.
If it can’t get 14 votes then clubs are idiots.
Post by: Duncan Shaw on July 31, 2025, 08:59:22 AM
Post by: Olneythelonely on July 31, 2025, 09:18:46 AM
As others have said, there is a very simple solution to this. The Premier League imposes a salary cap (e.g £300m). This will do nothing to dilute the competitiveness of the game versus our European friends as it is way above what most of them can afford.
It wouldn’t disadvantage any poorer clubs in the league either, as they are already paying way below the big clubs. So they should vote for it to stop the gap growing.
The only people who would object are the current Sky6 who would see the gap between them and us shrink.
If it can’t get 14 votes then clubs are idiots.
Wouldn’t that still only benefit any rich clubs trying to break into that 6? I don’t see how it would get the 14 votes.
It’s also £100m more than any club paid last year.
Post by: Gareth on July 31, 2025, 09:20:58 AM
As others have said, there is a very simple solution to this. The Premier League imposes a salary cap (e.g £300m). This will do nothing to dilute the competitiveness of the game versus our European friends as it is way above what most of them can afford.
It wouldn’t disadvantage any poorer clubs in the league either, as they are already paying way below the big clubs. So they should vote for it to stop the gap growing.
The only people who would object are the current Sky6 who would see the gap between them and us shrink.
If it can’t get 14 votes then clubs are idiots.
The theory is good but the cartel get their own way on these things because of the amount of clubs ie Fulham / Wolves / Palace / Bournemouth who have absolutely no ambition to be a challenger but love being in the league and milking it £’s wise. They always vote with what the cartel want.
A good Liverpool / Chelsea etc keeps the broadcast contracts etc maximised so those non competitive clubs just have to focus on staying on the gravy train every year.
Post by: LeeS on July 31, 2025, 09:40:23 AM
As others have said, there is a very simple solution to this. The Premier League imposes a salary cap (e.g £300m). This will do nothing to dilute the competitiveness of the game versus our European friends as it is way above what most of them can afford.
It wouldn’t disadvantage any poorer clubs in the league either, as they are already paying way below the big clubs. So they should vote for it to stop the gap growing.
The only people who would object are the current Sky6 who would see the gap between them and us shrink.
If it can’t get 14 votes then clubs are idiots.
Wouldn’t that still only benefit any rich clubs trying to break into that 6? I don’t see how it would get the 14 votes.
It’s also £100m more than any club paid last year.
Ok, I went too high with the 300m. But I don’t see why a Bournemouth or Palace should object. At the moment they are playing in a different league to 6 other clubs. A cap at least stops the gap growing ever bigger. And a cap would mean teams couldn’t poach and hoard players. So you’d get to keep your youngsters who you’ve developed
Post by: Dave on July 31, 2025, 11:10:20 AM
As others have said, there is a very simple solution to this. The Premier League imposes a salary cap (e.g £300m). This will do nothing to dilute the competitiveness of the game versus our European friends as it is way above what most of them can afford.
It wouldn’t disadvantage any poorer clubs in the league either, as they are already paying way below the big clubs. So they should vote for it to stop the gap growing.
The only people who would object are the current Sky6 who would see the gap between them and us shrink.
If it can’t get 14 votes then clubs are idiots.
But you're talking like it's universally accepted that there is a problem that needs a solution. We think it's a problem and Newcastle think it's a problem.
But why would the wider Premier League see there as being a problem to fix?
It's more popular than ever before and the zeros at the end of all the numbers keep going up. Even if someone were to raise the possible issue of competition stifling, they can easily point to the fact that there have been different title winners, competitive title races and (I think I'm right in saying) more different teams qualifying for the Champions League and Europa League in the last three or four seasons than at any other time since the Premier League started.
I imagine most teams look at the current setup and think it's working just fine.
Post by: Richard on July 31, 2025, 01:17:19 PM
I accept some on here will think me defeatist but the last 2 months have been very sobering.
Post by: Toronto Villa on July 31, 2025, 01:57:13 PM
Post by: Beard82 on July 31, 2025, 02:20:10 PM
The england team still wins nothing, fewer and fewer english players playing at the top level. Clubs overall debt is continuing to rise. Ticket prices are getting ridiclous
Post by: Beard82 on July 31, 2025, 02:24:29 PM
Yeah - but there are also plenty of warning signs. Newly promoted teams stuggle to compete, games are less and less entertaining. I never watch none villa games anymore.Plus the reason that it has been more competitive is because despite having the hand stacked in their favour, Man Utd, Spurs and to a lesser exctent Chelsea have been rubbish.
The england team still wins nothing, fewer and fewer english players playing at the top level. Clubs overall debt is continuing to rise. Ticket prices are getting ridiclous
Post by: Dave on July 31, 2025, 02:34:50 PM
Yeah - but there are also plenty of warning signs. Newly promoted teams stuggle to compete, games are less and less entertaining. I never watch none villa games anymore.
The england team still wins nothing, fewer and fewer english players playing at the top level. Clubs overall debt is continuing to rise. Ticket prices are getting ridiclous
You reckon? I'd bet there's loads more than there were ten / fifteen years ago.
Post by: Drummond on July 31, 2025, 02:41:44 PM
See the likes of Bournemouth, Brentford, Palace, Burnley, Leeds 😉 . All small clubs who aren't particularly rich (outside of the obscene income generated by the Premier League) and who don't have anywhere near the ability of clubs such as Villa, Newcastle, Everton and West Ham (the latter two from their shiny stadiums and location amongst other things) to make up the difference.
Post by: john2710 on July 31, 2025, 08:22:35 PM
In the last 25 years how many home grown players have been anywhere near top 6 players? I can think of 3 or 4 at most.
Post by: Dave on July 31, 2025, 08:26:05 PM
Over the next few seasons we need a batch of the U18 / U21 / £5m young players coming through to supplement our first team squad.
In the last 25 years how many home grown players have been anywhere near top 6 players? I can think of 3 or 4 at most.
Grealish, Gabby, Albrighton, Cahill, Ramsey.
Daniel Sturridge depending on your criteria.
Post by: VillaTim on July 31, 2025, 09:11:22 PM
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 31, 2025, 10:10:18 PM
Maybe it’s not a bad thing. It was a bit bonkers last season. I’d sooner we kept the core together, protect our best players, add a player or two via loan and go again next summer when hopefully we are in the CL again.l.
Oh, please, what rubbish.
You’d rather we didn’t significantly strengthen the squad and would prefer to wait till the season after until we have a go?
Why do you feel like you have to cobble together an argument to make it look like we are doing the sensible thing (ie not much) rather than strengthening?
Post by: PaulWinch again on July 31, 2025, 10:13:42 PM
Post by: Ian. on July 31, 2025, 10:14:48 PM
I’d still be hopeful something will happen, albeit it’s in the loan market late on.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on July 31, 2025, 10:15:42 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on July 31, 2025, 10:26:14 PM
Post by: Ian. on July 31, 2025, 10:34:15 PM
Yeah but he’s saying he’d “rather” we did that. Which I dont believe for a second.
No I agree, I get the trying to be positive spin, but no chance is anyone is going to be happy with no signings at all and if we sign someone tomorrow he’d be all over it, like the rest of us….unless it’s DCL.
Post by: tomd2103 on August 01, 2025, 01:36:18 AM
I read it as he'd rather keep the core together and then add to it next season rather than sell Emi/JJ/Ollie or whoever to bring in the cash to sign other players. Rather than he'd just prefer we don't do anything full stop.
I do slightly worry that this might be a season too far for the group of players we have. Think there were some signs of it last season and this summer just feels like the time when we need to freshen up things up a bit with a few quality additions.
That said it is still a decent squad of players and if injuries are kind, it could be another strong season.
Post by: andyh on August 03, 2025, 09:12:59 AM
We seem to have been the only club affected by the ‘rules’ that prevent us signing anyone, who can improve us.
The big 6 have spent money like water, including Chelsea, yet we are left with owners who have bulging wallets but are not permitted to spend any of it.
We seem to be paying the price for the gambles we made over the last few years of breaking the rules. It’s now come back to bite us.
Had we got that point at Man U on the last day, we would be having a very different conversation.
Post by: Smithy on August 03, 2025, 10:59:20 AM
Every single club has improved or strengthened their squad this summer…..except Fulham.
We seem to have been the only club affected by the ‘rules’ that prevent us signing anyone, who can improve us.
The big 6 have spent money like water, including Chelsea, yet we are left with owners who have bulging wallets but are not permitted to spend any of it.
We seem to be paying the price for the gambles we made over the last few years of breaking the rules. It’s now come back to bite us.
Had we got that point at Man U on the last day, we would be having a very different conversation.
I don't think we're paying for "gambles of the last few years", I think we're paying for the decade or so in which we fell behind them commercially. The top 6 were growing their commercial operations at over 10% a year while we were struggling in the Premier League and then in the Championship. THAT's what's costing us now. In terms of revenue from the playing side (prem earnings, Champions League, player sales), we're up there with the best of them - where we're far behind is on the commercial side, and THAT's why they can spend and we can't. Until we're regularly making £200m+ a year in commercial revenue (like Spurs do, for example), then the current financial rules are always going to hinder us.
That change isn't going to happen overnight. It relies on multiple seasons at the top end of the table. We're already making inroads. But we're still, unfortunately, a decent-sized step behind them (and they're not standing still either, they're all still growing).
I hate that it's the business side that is hampering us on the playing side, but it's the unfortunate reality of the way this sport works at the moment.
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 03, 2025, 11:30:56 AM
Post by: Somniloquism on August 03, 2025, 11:39:38 AM
Every single club has improved or strengthened their squad this summer…..except Fulham.At the moment I would argue only certain clubs have improved or stengthend like Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse, Spurs, etc. Others have had their best players and even their manager taken by the aforementioned clubs and haven't obviously bought players to replace those gone.
Post by: Smithy on August 03, 2025, 11:39:44 AM
We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.
Agree completely. But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison. Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business. Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days. Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that. That's what we need. Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart. We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware. We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year.
And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.
Post by: paul_e on August 03, 2025, 11:56:55 AM
1. Premier League PSR limiting us to net losses of £105m over 3 years.
2. UEFA FSR limiting us to total cost for wages, transfers and agent fees to 70% of turnover.
3. UEFA restrictions on us specifically that are limiting us to having to make a profit on player changes in our a list squad.
The combination of all 3 has completely fucked us over, with the 2nd one in particular being a problem because the coming season will see a big drop in turnover thanks the ref in the Man U game.
Post by: Mellin on August 03, 2025, 12:43:41 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 03, 2025, 12:46:22 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on August 03, 2025, 12:49:25 PM
Post by: andyh on August 03, 2025, 01:09:53 PM
The referee didn't lose that game for us. It was an Aston Villa original production.Indeed.
We should own it, not deflect responsibility.
Post by: paul_e on August 03, 2025, 01:19:11 PM
I reckon we'd also have taken the Chelsea style deferral for a year and used this summer to make 3-4 signings to fill out the squad.
Post by: tomd2103 on August 03, 2025, 02:04:30 PM
We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.
Agree completely. But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison. Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business. Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days. Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that. That's what we need. Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart. We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware. We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year.
And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.
Spurs have the added advantage of being in London though.
Post by: IFWaters on August 03, 2025, 03:53:31 PM
Yes but it's the utter shit hole of London. It's not like their ground is on Park Lane.We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.
Agree completely. But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison. Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business. Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days. Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that. That's what we need. Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart. We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware. We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year.
And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.
Spurs have the added advantage of being in London though.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 03, 2025, 03:56:01 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 03, 2025, 04:08:05 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on August 03, 2025, 04:33:20 PM
Post by: DB on August 03, 2025, 04:35:47 PM
One of the game-changing things about Spurs ground and the revenue it generates is the average spend-per-fan since they moved. I think it’s gone from something like £30-odd quid to £130-odd, due mainly to people spending more time (and therefore money) there. That’s something we can address to an extent by giving people better facilities. The Warehouse is a step in the right direction, and will help the club understand demand and perhaps further similar investment.
That may take a hit if Son leaves.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 03, 2025, 04:47:10 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on August 03, 2025, 05:23:30 PM
Post by: brontebilly on August 03, 2025, 06:09:12 PM
Yes but it's the utter shit hole of London. It's not like their ground is on Park Lane.We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.
Agree completely. But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison. Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business. Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days. Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that. That's what we need. Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart. We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware. We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year.
And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.
Spurs have the added advantage of being in London though.
It's Park Lane compared to the area around Villa Park!
Levy gets criticised a lot but he made the decision to rebuild the stadium. Regular European club football since he came in too.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 03, 2025, 06:17:36 PM
Yes but it's the utter shit hole of London. It's not like their ground is on Park Lane.We’ve behind the current financial elite since we missed our chance in 92. And certainly more so once Chelsea and Man City found their pots of gold. We’ve been missing opportunities and playing catch up ever since.
Agree completely. But it's why I choose Spurs as the comparison. Man Utd obviously had the Fergie-era success to build their global commmercial behemoth. Liverpool had theirs built before Man Utd, and have been competing at the top end pretty much consistently. Arsenal too had a period of relative on-field success to build that global business. Chelsea and City both benefitted from billionaires before the rules changed, so they got the head-start that no-one else gets to have these days. Spurs, meanwhile, hadn't won anything for over a decade, but were relatively successful at staying in the competition for European places, and have built a really strong commercial operation out of that. That's what we need. Any commercial operation that RELIES on on-field success, is only ever a couple of bad signings, or an injury crisis, or a poached manager from falling apart. We need one that delivers season in, season out, even if we don't lift silverware. We need one that is sustainable, as long as we remain "in the mix" for trophies year-on-year.
And that only happens when we've done that for a few consecutive years, unfortunately.
Spurs have the added advantage of being in London though.
That makes absolutely no difference.
They could probably draw 60,000 tourists to every home match (look how many South Koreans they get because of Son), and it's in London, no matter how rough Tottenham is.
Post by: Mister E on August 03, 2025, 07:36:50 PM
One thing I've periodically banged on about - starting in the mid-late 1990's and Nakata - is the signing of players from Asia: we haven't, others have and it's been a useful way of building international interest in the club.
Post by: aev on August 04, 2025, 07:50:38 AM
Post by: ChicagoLion on August 04, 2025, 08:19:22 AM
As has been said before, the attraction of playing for a London club is anonymity.Yep along with Lifestyle choices, some of the best restaurants in the world, transport links , pretty women, accommodation options from Country side, Penthouse to luxury Wet End.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 04, 2025, 09:05:31 AM
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 04, 2025, 09:10:27 AM
Post by: algy on August 04, 2025, 10:10:55 AM
Post by: Clampy on August 04, 2025, 11:33:48 AM
Post by: Smithy on August 04, 2025, 12:56:06 PM
London also has a large number of companies that buy expensive corporate hospitality.
This is a good point. Back when I had a proper job, I'd get invited a couple of times a year to various corporate dos, and they were almost always at London Premier League clubs, Twickenham or Wembley. I was based about an hour outside of london, and about 90 minutes from Brum, for context. I never, ever, got invited to anything that was outside London.
Those of you who live in and around Birmingham now, and move in those circles, how many times have you been invited to VP to be entertained in a corporate box? Does it happen regularly?
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 04, 2025, 01:54:38 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on August 04, 2025, 02:05:35 PM
While we can’t spend anything at all Everton, who have all manner of PSR issues are lashing out £40M on Dibling from Southampton.
Its either we are being very patient to wait until end of window so we can get cheaper deals or until a big wage contributer moves on we can get someone in i think
Post by: ozzjim on August 04, 2025, 02:06:55 PM
Post by: London Villan on August 04, 2025, 02:07:43 PM
Post by: ozzjim on August 04, 2025, 02:08:06 PM
Post by: London Villan on August 04, 2025, 02:22:30 PM
London also has a large number of companies that buy expensive corporate hospitality.
This is a good point. Back when I had a proper job, I'd get invited a couple of times a year to various corporate dos, and they were almost always at London Premier League clubs, Twickenham or Wembley. I was based about an hour outside of london, and about 90 minutes from Brum, for context. I never, ever, got invited to anything that was outside London.
Those of you who live in and around Birmingham now, and move in those circles, how many times have you been invited to VP to be entertained in a corporate box? Does it happen regularly?
For a long time, a large number of the purchasers of boxes were the current players for their families. Even MoN has his own box, which we had to adapt for his Mrs.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 04, 2025, 02:29:47 PM
While we can’t spend anything at all Everton, who have all manner of PSR issues are lashing out £40M on Dibling from Southampton.
They made a profit on sales for the last three seasons so I doubt they have PSR issues anymore.
Post by: Gareth on August 04, 2025, 03:04:06 PM
While we can’t spend anything at all Everton, who have all manner of PSR issues are lashing out £40M on Dibling from Southampton.
Everton aren’t in Europe so haven’t got the 70% restriction to worry about
Post by: VillaTim on August 04, 2025, 03:08:40 PM
While we can’t spend anything at all Everton, who have all manner of PSR issues are lashing out £40M on Dibling from Southampton.Thats £40M down the drain
Post by: aev on August 04, 2025, 03:42:12 PM
There is no level playing field to any of this, and it makes it almost impossible for equal competition.
The fact that the media just gloss over it all makes it even more infuriating.
Post by: rougegorge on August 04, 2025, 03:51:01 PM
So far they have spent a huge amount - about £260m, whilst recouping around £130m. So unless they sell players to get in another £130m, they will be telling a few new players that they aren't playing Champions League football this season.
Post by: rougegorge on August 04, 2025, 04:16:47 PM
Post by: tomd2103 on August 04, 2025, 04:36:03 PM
Uefa SCR is much more damaging than PSR is.
Particularly to us given our wage bill / turnover ratio. I think it's much more restrictive than PSR.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 04, 2025, 04:38:24 PM
Uefa SCR is much more damaging than PSR is.
Particularly to us given our wage bill / turnover ratio. I think it's much more restrictive than PSR.
Yes, definitely. We’ve pissed PSR by selling the women’s team and the Villa-Everton-Chelsea shenanigans. Unfortunately UEFA don’t take these into account.
The Warehouse might not fly with UEFA either.
Post by: paul_e on August 04, 2025, 04:46:08 PM
In the 2025/26 season, the Club will have a maximum Football Earnings deficit of
EUR 5 million for the reporting period ending in 2025 (“2025 Target”)
For Chelsea that line is for 2026 and instead they have:
In the 2025/26 season, the Club will have a maximum Football Earnings deficit for the
reporting period ending in 2025 equivalent to the projected deficit submitted in the
business plan (“2025 Target”)
So basically they are under 'watch' for an extra year but have been able to negotiate a much bigger potential loss this year as a result.
On top of that they've been given their annual Arsenal subsidy, whereas we're struggling to make sales.
Post by: rougegorge on August 04, 2025, 05:06:58 PM
As I've mentioned a few times, Chelsea have effectively deferred things for a year. If you look at the actual reports here - https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/integrity/club-financial-control-body/ - section 3 covers the difference. For us for 25/26 we have:Thanks for the summary - they know how to play it. I guess they could almost just keep paying fines if they wanted to and they'd probably be able to withstand missing a European season as well somehow if they had to.
In the 2025/26 season, the Club will have a maximum Football Earnings deficit of
EUR 5 million for the reporting period ending in 2025 (“2025 Target”)
For Chelsea that line is for 2026 and instead they have:
In the 2025/26 season, the Club will have a maximum Football Earnings deficit for the
reporting period ending in 2025 equivalent to the projected deficit submitted in the
business plan (“2025 Target”)
So basically they are under 'watch' for an extra year but have been able to negotiate a much bigger potential loss this year as a result.
On top of that they've been given their annual Arsenal subsidy, whereas we're struggling to make sales.
They will still need to offload some players as they are still bound by the rule about not registering 'any new player on its List A to UEFA club competitions unless the List A Transfer Balance is positive'. They do have a lot of players they can sell though - starting with Dewsbury-Hall.
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 04, 2025, 07:30:33 PM
Post by: VillaTim on August 04, 2025, 09:49:55 PM
How are Chelsea getting around all this?By cooking the books .
9 year contracts for players .
Selling hotels for above MV
Selling women's team before the loopehole closed , again way above MV
Post by: ChicagoLion on August 04, 2025, 09:53:23 PM
As has been mentioned plenty of times, they have also been excellent at trading players.How are Chelsea getting around all this?By cooking the books .
9 year contracts for players .
Selling hotels for above MV
Selling women's team before the loopehole closed , again way above MV
Post by: VillaTim on August 04, 2025, 09:55:54 PM
Winning that trophy and qualifying for the ECL helps too . They have a whole army of players to trade which helps too .As has been mentioned plenty of times, they have also been excellent at trading players.How are Chelsea getting around all this?By cooking the books .
9 year contracts for players .
Selling hotels for above MV
Selling women's team before the loopehole closed , again way above MV
Post by: DC1874 on August 04, 2025, 10:22:53 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 05, 2025, 01:19:20 AM
How are Chelsea getting around all this?By cooking the books .
9 year contracts for players .
Selling hotels for above MV
Selling women's team before the loopehole closed , again way above MV
When did the loophole close?
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 05, 2025, 01:24:02 AM
Post by: paul_e on August 05, 2025, 01:32:53 AM
If we have to show a positive transfer balance on this year’s A-list compared to last year’s before we can add players, can we even add Malen, Garcia, Buendia and Bizot? None of them were on it last season.
I think so. The wording of it in the actual uefa document seems to read that it's the entire costs not just transfer values, soon the saving on wages for Olsen and the loans should cover us adding in the new guys. Not much wiggle room after that though.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 05, 2025, 01:56:18 AM
If we have to show a positive transfer balance on this year’s A-list compared to last year’s before we can add players, can we even add Malen, Garcia, Buendia and Bizot? None of them were on it last season.
I think so. The wording of it in the actual uefa document seems to read that it's the entire costs not just transfer values, soon the saving on wages for Olsen and the loans should cover us adding in the new guys. Not much wiggle room after that though.
Righto. Yes, we should be good on overall costs.
Post by: OCD on August 05, 2025, 11:27:53 AM
If we have to show a positive transfer balance on this year’s A-list compared to last year’s before we can add players, can we even add Malen, Garcia, Buendia and Bizot? None of them were on it last season.
But Rashford, Asensio and Disasi were who would have cost more. Bizot just replaces Olsen.
Post by: brontebilly on August 05, 2025, 11:28:38 AM
It's true they are top of player sales? That + WCC win is about £300M And Ithey don't even have a shirt sponsor?!
I'm not sure they are all over player sales. Paying Man United a fee not to sign Sancho, letting Sterling and Chilwell run down their contracts etc It's just creative accounting really. Transfermarkt has their squad down for 40 players currently
Post by: Dave on August 05, 2025, 07:49:05 PM
It's true they are top of player sales? That + WCC win is about £300M And Ithey don't even have a shirt sponsor?!
I'm not sure they are all over player sales. Paying Man United a fee not to sign Sancho, letting Sterling and Chilwell run down their contracts etc It's just creative accounting really. Transfermarkt has their squad down for 40 players currently
They still are though. Particularly for players who they've never really used.
Humphries, Petrovic, Hall, Maatsen, Hutchison, Angelo and Casadei can't have more than a dozen appearances for Chelsea between them yet that's about £200m in sales in the last two years.
Edit - and none of them to Strasbourg. Add them in and you find another £50m or so.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 05, 2025, 10:38:10 PM
Post by: martin o`who?? on August 07, 2025, 04:00:36 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on August 07, 2025, 04:18:50 PM
Perhaps we could flog the naming rights to VP for nearly £1/2bn like citeh did a few years back. It'd still be Villa Park to me and anyone else who knows anything about football.As we don't own the ground, would it come under the clubs money if we did?
Post by: IFWaters on August 07, 2025, 04:40:09 PM
Aston Martin Villa Park
The Rolls Roycerena
The Royal Stadium
The HP Sauce Bowl (one for history fans there)
Hanks Place
Post by: Drummond on August 07, 2025, 05:28:30 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 07, 2025, 05:34:53 PM
Villa Park naming rights I could live with :
Aston Martin Villa Park
The Rolls Roycerena
The Royal Stadium
The HP Sauce Bowl (one for history fans there)
Hanks Place
My word, those are dreadful.
Post by: Mister E on August 07, 2025, 06:59:11 PM
Yup. Don't give up the day job, Mr Waters (unless you're in the branding business, in which case ... give up the day job and find something else!).Villa Park naming rights I could live with :My word, those are dreadful.
Aston Martin Villa Park
The Rolls Roycerena
The Royal Stadium
The HP Sauce Bowl (one for history fans there)
Hanks Place
Post by: Crown Hill on August 10, 2025, 10:28:47 PM
https://x.com/slbsn/status/1954635896885793238?s=46&t=1A7xfLJNUgdI6215TY6YlA
Above and below are what I’m interested in. If he’s right and I’ve rubbished his 20/20 hindsight before then it paints a much more optimistic picture for us
Post by: paul_e on August 10, 2025, 11:10:58 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on August 10, 2025, 11:18:00 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 11, 2025, 12:08:48 AM
Sounds about right. The guy he's replying to is talking nonsense.
Correct.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on August 11, 2025, 11:56:30 AM
Villa Park naming rights I could live with :
The Rolls Roycerena
My word, those are dreadful.
And I had just finished adapting the 'Macarena' for the new ground name. :(
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 11, 2025, 07:12:03 PM
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2025/august/11/aston-villa-partner-with-red-bull/
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 14, 2025, 03:28:12 PM
Quote
We are pleased to welcome a new partnership with Coca-Cola, enhancing the matchday experience and creating unique moments of connection for fans around the world
(https://scontent.fbhx4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/515013893_1359729878851658_3331036546468098894_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640_tt6&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=0pJuPaeuS1sQ7kNvwEdBfpj&_nc_oc=AdmruH8H1NL2stLgG2fQXQ3VAOxop3KHDPku7FbdLjKyghJr4Rp2KA3WK2K92-ND9uI&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhx4-1.fna&_nc_gid=tGfI6gBG4f_BVIqYg8EOBg&oh=00_AfVnVHF60zCKgx7cyDxZkTveh13jhtP86OJ3wC5Vfv0pig&oe=68A3B213)
Post by: Rigadon on August 14, 2025, 03:29:52 PM
First Red Bull and now Coca-Cola, we're Aston Villa, balls to your health.QuoteWe are pleased to welcome a new partnership with Coca-Cola, enhancing the matchday experience and creating unique moments of connection for fans around the world
(https://scontent.fbhx4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/515013893_1359729878851658_3331036546468098894_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640_tt6&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=0pJuPaeuS1sQ7kNvwEdBfpj&_nc_oc=AdmruH8H1NL2stLgG2fQXQ3VAOxop3KHDPku7FbdLjKyghJr4Rp2KA3WK2K92-ND9uI&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhx4-1.fna&_nc_gid=tGfI6gBG4f_BVIqYg8EOBg&oh=00_AfVnVHF60zCKgx7cyDxZkTveh13jhtP86OJ3wC5Vfv0pig&oe=68A3B213)
Pfft. I see the can is red. Some commitment to this partnership... He'll be off to Newcastle next summer.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 14, 2025, 03:33:18 PM
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on August 14, 2025, 04:27:35 PM
Post by: PeterWithe on August 14, 2025, 04:36:14 PM
Post by: Demitri_C on August 14, 2025, 09:44:34 PM
Post by: ozzjim on August 14, 2025, 10:47:45 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 14, 2025, 10:53:02 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 14, 2025, 11:53:17 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 15, 2025, 01:56:41 AM
What is our wage bill at now? Even at an average of £120k per week on all 25 in the squad it's £156M. Our turnover is going to be well over £300M this year. So who are we paying insane wages to to get the wage bill over £240M? I get some of those departed, but even Donkeydenker on 90k a week isn't going to shove it that high. Going through the current squad I can only think Bouby, Ollie, Youri and Emi would be on much more than £150k per week. Add in huge player sales I'm really struggling to see how the l situation is so drastic.
It was £252m in the last published accounts, but that was a 13-month financial year, so pro-rata about £233m. Only players on the A-list and the head coach count towards UEFA SCR though I think.
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 15, 2025, 07:46:31 AM
https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf (https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf)
Post by: Dave on August 15, 2025, 08:09:59 AM
Quote
Sporting Disciplinary Measures
• The Club agrees to be subject to a sporting restriction and, as a consequence, may not
register any new player on its List A to UEFA club competitions unless the List A Transfer
Balance is positive.
• The List A Transfer Balance is defined as the difference between the cost savings from
outgoing players (“Cost savings”) and the new costs from incoming players (“New costs”) at
any applicable deadline for the Club’s submission of its List A.
• The sporting restriction is foreseen as follows:
• It unconditionally applies in the 2025/26 season;
• It conditionally applies in the 2026/27 season, if the Club has a Football Earnings
deficit in the reporting period 2025;
• It conditionally applies in the 2027/28 season, if the Club exceeds the 2026 Target;
and
• It conditionally applies in the 2028/29 season if the Club exceeds the Final Target
by less than EUR 20 million.
• Should the Club exceed any Target of the Settlement by more than EUR 10 million, but less
than EUR 20 million, the limitation shall be more restrictive, as the calculated Cost savings
from outgoing players shall be reduced by 50% (i.e., the New costs from incoming players
will have to be less than 50% of the Cost savings from outgoing players).
I'd certainly not seen it laid out as detailed as that before.
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 15, 2025, 08:24:59 AM
Post by: Drummond on August 15, 2025, 08:26:29 AM
We'll have saved salaries on Ramsey, Rashford, Disasi, Olsen and Asensio but will have increased by adding Malen, Garcia, Bizot and Guessand. The ins are lower but also attract fees. The outs have no fees barring Ramsey.
If Bailey goes we're better, but then Asensio is rumoured too.
Post by: Drummond on August 15, 2025, 08:27:05 AM
Does it all apply to our Premier League squad? Or just to our European one? Because if it’s the former too, aren’t we just fucked?
I don't think they've jurisdiction over the Premier League squad?
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 15, 2025, 08:29:43 AM
Does it all apply to our Premier League squad? Or just to our European one? Because if it’s the former too, aren’t we just fucked?
I don't think they've jurisdiction over the Premier League squad?
That was my thought, but then I saw a bit an online meltdown and assumed the worst.
Post by: Rigadon on August 15, 2025, 08:30:57 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on August 15, 2025, 08:38:46 AM
I think this is why people think we can't spend the Ramsey money. We've already spent it on Guessand.
We'll have saved salaries on Ramsey, Rashford, Disasi, Olsen and Asensio but will have increased by adding Malen, Garcia, Bizot and Guessand. The ins are lower but also attract fees. The outs have no fees barring Ramsey.
If Bailey goes we're better, but then Asensio is rumoured too.
Yes although Asensio will already be on the list, so not sure how that works.
Post by: Dave on August 15, 2025, 08:56:50 AM
Does it all apply to our Premier League squad? Or just to our European one? Because if it’s the former too, aren’t we just fucked?
I don't think they've jurisdiction over the Premier League squad?
That was my thought, but then I saw a bit an online meltdown and assumed the worst.
They don't have jurisdiction, but in reality they do.
Let's say we want to spend £30m on a centre-back that isn't Disasi, we need to convince him that he wants to join a club that can't use him in European games.
That extra outlay also means that those conditionality bits for 26/27 and 27/28 come into play, so they can't play in those competitions in those seasons and next years transfers can't either.
If we're trying to buy the few players that exist that turn one of the twenty or so best teams in the world into one of the ten or so best teams in the world, those players might just go to a team that isn't messing them around like that.
Post by: Dante Lavelli on August 15, 2025, 09:00:20 AM
Post by: Dave on August 15, 2025, 09:04:15 AM
Do the conditional and unconditional restrictions only apply if we qualify for Europe?
Well we wouldn't be presenting any lists of players to UEFA, so there's no reason they'd be interested.
But let's say we tank this season and use it as an excuse to go on a spree next summer, we then have the same issue in 27/28.
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 15, 2025, 09:04:54 AM
Does it all apply to our Premier League squad? Or just to our European one? Because if it’s the former too, aren’t we just fucked?
I don't think they've jurisdiction over the Premier League squad?
That was my thought, but then I saw a bit an online meltdown and assumed the worst.
They don't have jurisdiction, but in reality they do.
Let's say we want to spend £30m on a centre-back that isn't Disasi, we need to convince him that he wants to join a club that can't use him in European games.
That extra outlay also means that those conditionality bits for 26/27 and 27/28 come into play, so they can't play in those competitions in those seasons and next years transfers can't either.
If we're trying to buy the few players that exist that turn one of the twenty or so best teams in the world into one of the ten or so best teams in the world, those players might just go to a team that isn't messing them around like that.
Thanks Dave. Now I’m back in the “we’re fucked” camp. Thanks a lot!
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 09:09:36 AM
Post by: PaulWinch again on August 15, 2025, 09:23:23 AM
Does it all apply to our Premier League squad? Or just to our European one? Because if it’s the former too, aren’t we just fucked?
I don't think they've jurisdiction over the Premier League squad?
That was my thought, but then I saw a bit an online meltdown and assumed the worst.
They don't have jurisdiction, but in reality they do.
Let's say we want to spend £30m on a centre-back that isn't Disasi, we need to convince him that he wants to join a club that can't use him in European games.
That extra outlay also means that those conditionality bits for 26/27 and 27/28 come into play, so they can't play in those competitions in those seasons and next years transfers can't either.
If we're trying to buy the few players that exist that turn one of the twenty or so best teams in the world into one of the ten or so best teams in the world, those players might just go to a team that isn't messing them around like that.
Yup, no player worth their salt is going to sign for a club who can’t play them in Europe if they get there. It’s very difficult, because the reality we need to both be smart with sales (see Ramsey) and also drive our revenue up. Managing that, and progressing is an incredibly hard cycle to manage.
Post by: aev on August 15, 2025, 09:27:44 AM
Does it all apply to our Premier League squad? Or just to our European one? Because if it’s the former too, aren’t we just fucked?
I don't think they've jurisdiction over the Premier League squad?
That was my thought, but then I saw a bit an online meltdown and assumed the worst.
They don't have jurisdiction, but in reality they do.
Let's say we want to spend £30m on a centre-back that isn't Disasi, we need to convince him that he wants to join a club that can't use him in European games.
That extra outlay also means that those conditionality bits for 26/27 and 27/28 come into play, so they can't play in those competitions in those seasons and next years transfers can't either.
If we're trying to buy the few players that exist that turn one of the twenty or so best teams in the world into one of the ten or so best teams in the world, those players might just go to a team that isn't messing them around like that.
Yup, no player worth their salt is going to sign for a club who can’t play them in Europe if they get there. It’s very difficult, because the reality we need to both be smart with sales (see Ramsey) and also drive our revenue up. Managing that, and progressing is an incredibly hard cycle to manage.
Absolutely.
The whole thing is anti competitive, and if I didn't care so much I'd find something else to mess up my weekends.
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 09:30:00 AM
Especially when it’s not a fair and level playing field.
I keep banging on about it, and I know it’s monotonous, but the fact we are so hamstrung by pathetic financial governances, imposed by 2 different football authorities, while other clubs spend money with impunity purely because of who they are, is really pissing me off.
Post by: Rico on August 15, 2025, 10:05:05 AM
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 10:07:42 AM
The big worry to me is that our owners just get fed up with not being able to compete on a level playing field and just say fuck it we're out of here.Yep !
Include Unai in that.
Post by: Clampy on August 15, 2025, 10:11:38 AM
Post by: Drummond on August 15, 2025, 10:13:04 AM
We just need to keep banging on the door, and we will win something again one day.
Post by: Gareth on August 15, 2025, 10:16:28 AM
The big worry to me is that our owners just get fed up with not being able to compete on a level playing field and just say fuck it we're out of here.Yep !
Include Unai in that.
Imagine we lose the first 3/4 games I’d imagine a lot of our fan base will also conveniently forget that that we are trying to compete at the top of the hardest league under pathetic restrictions & turn on Unai and his playing style anyway.
The expectations created by the last 3 years is a million miles from the optimism levels at the moment which is kind of sad when the season starts tomorrow
Post by: Chris Smith on August 15, 2025, 10:17:50 AM
The big worry to me is that our owners just get fed up with not being able to compete on a level playing field and just say fuck it we're out of here.Yep !
Include Unai in that.
On the other hand they should know the rules and the implications of breaking them. It would be a pretty shoddy thing to do to leave us in the lurch like that.
Not that I think they will, not least because they may struggle to get a decent return on their investment given the amount they’ve put into the non-playing side plus any potential buyer will be well aware of the UEFA restrictions.
Post by: AV82EC on August 15, 2025, 10:19:12 AM
They won't. They'll battle on for a good while yet. We're a great side, in the best League of the most popular sport in the world. We've finished 4the, 6th and 7th in the last three years, reached a Cup Semi Final, a Conference League Semi Final and a Champions League Quarter Final. Most clubs can only dream of that.
We just need to keep banging on the door, and we will win something again one day.
Fully agree with this. Yes it’s hard to compete but fuck me some of the negative Nelly takes on here this summer you’d think we’re in a battle to stay in the League.
Post by: john e on August 15, 2025, 10:24:02 AM
The big worry to me is that our owners just get fed up with not being able to compete on a level playing field and just say fuck it we're out of here.Yep !
Include Unai in that.
Imagine we lose the first 3/4 games I’d imagine a lot of our fan base will also conveniently forget that that we are trying to compete at the top of the hardest league under pathetic restrictions & turn on Unai and his playing style anyway.
The expectations created by the last 3 years is a million miles from the optimism levels at the moment which is kind of sad when the season starts tomorrow
I shall be ripping my season ticket up in front of the dugout if that happens in a total overreaction
well jumping on my mobile device opened on my wallet app
Post by: PeterWithe on August 15, 2025, 10:25:03 AM
I was actually just thinking that. I know he comes across as someone who thrives on a challenge but even he may get fed up of having to sell a decent player season.
Yup, it is a worry although I console myself with the thought that he's spent most of his career at clubs where that is the case.
Post by: Gareth on August 15, 2025, 10:29:56 AM
The big worry to me is that our owners just get fed up with not being able to compete on a level playing field and just say fuck it we're out of here.Yep !
Include Unai in that.
Imagine we lose the first 3/4 games I’d imagine a lot of our fan base will also conveniently forget that that we are trying to compete at the top of the hardest league under pathetic restrictions & turn on Unai and his playing style anyway.
The expectations created by the last 3 years is a million miles from the optimism levels at the moment which is kind of sad when the season starts tomorrow
I shall be ripping my season ticket up in front of the dugout if that happens in a total overreaction
well jumping on my mobile device opened on my wallet app
Brilliant John
Post by: VILLA MOLE on August 15, 2025, 10:31:54 AM
The big worry to me is that our owners just get fed up with not being able to compete on a level playing field and just say fuck it we're out of here.Yep !
Include Unai in that.
Imagine we lose the first 3/4 games I’d imagine a lot of our fan base will also conveniently forget that that we are trying to compete at the top of the hardest league under pathetic restrictions & turn on Unai and his playing style anyway.
The expectations created by the last 3 years is a million miles from the optimism levels at the moment which is kind of sad when the season starts tomorrow
I shall be ripping my season ticket up in front of the dugout if that happens in a total overreaction
well jumping on my mobile device opened on my wallet app
oooh you bloody show off with your ticket turning up on the app !!
Post by: Brend'Watkins on August 15, 2025, 10:43:15 AM
These are the rules explained for dummies. If I get it now then so will you all.
Here's what this UEFA settlement means for #AVFC in simple terms:
We broke their spending rules and now face a 3-year punishment period that will severely limit our transfer activity.
The basics: Villa spent too much relative to our income in 2023/24. UEFA particularly scrutinized our player swap deals (think Douglas Luiz-Iling Junior exchange - Dobbin-Tim / Maatsen - Kellyman ) and made specific adjustments to our finances.
The targets we must hit:
•2025/26: Maximum €5m loss
•2026/27: Break even (€0 loss)
•2027/28: Full compliance with spending rules
Miss these targets by more than €20m and we're banned from European competition for three seasons. That's the nuclear option.
The transfer restrictions hurt most: We can only register new players for European competition if we sell players worth more than we spend. So if we sell for €40m, we can only spend €40m on replacements.
This applies unconditionally next season, then conditionally based on whether we hit our financial targets.
The fines: €5m guaranteed, plus up to €15m more if we miss targets. Could reach €20m total if we mess up badly.
What this means practically: Villa must become a selling club short-term. No more £50m Onana signings without major sales first.
The good news: If we comply early (hit targets by 2026), we can exit the settlement regime ahead of schedule. Miss by small amounts and penalties scale proportionally.
Bottom line: Villa's transfer strategy is in handcuffs for three years. Every signing must be balanced by sales, every target must be hit, or we face European exile.
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 10:49:50 AM
Thanks for that. It clearly shows the difficulty we are in and that things really are as drastic as some of us think.
Post by: PeterWithe on August 15, 2025, 10:57:32 AM
Or can the outgoing £40m be split across the terms of incoming player contracts as it is for the domestic FFP rules?
Post by: ozzjim on August 15, 2025, 11:30:07 AM
Post by: Brazilian Villain on August 15, 2025, 11:38:22 AM
Meanwhile, over at the Etihad....
Post by: Drummond on August 15, 2025, 11:40:10 AM
Post by: PeterWithe on August 15, 2025, 11:41:52 AM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 11:44:23 AM
What's Multiball then? Apart from fucking expensive
I think it's what we used to fire a ball across Nyland's goal when he carried the original over the line in that Sheff U game.
Post by: London Villan on August 15, 2025, 11:44:34 AM
Post by: Drummond on August 15, 2025, 11:44:36 AM
What's Multiball then? Apart from fucking expensive
Where there are spare balls on cones by the pitch to speed things up.
So now with the increased price for Newcastle, we get to see even less football for our money.
Post by: Pat Mustard on August 15, 2025, 11:46:08 AM
Apologies if this has already been posted up on the thread.
These are the rules explained for dummies. If I get it now then so will you all.
Here's what this UEFA settlement means for #AVFC in simple terms:
We broke their spending rules and now face a 3-year punishment period that will severely limit our transfer activity.
The basics: Villa spent too much relative to our income in 2023/24. UEFA particularly scrutinized our player swap deals (think Douglas Luiz-Iling Junior exchange - Dobbin-Tim / Maatsen - Kellyman ) and made specific adjustments to our finances.
The targets we must hit:
•2025/26: Maximum €5m loss
•2026/27: Break even (€0 loss)
•2027/28: Full compliance with spending rules
Miss these targets by more than €20m and we're banned from European competition for three seasons. That's the nuclear option.
The transfer restrictions hurt most: We can only register new players for European competition if we sell players worth more than we spend. So if we sell for €40m, we can only spend €40m on replacements.
This applies unconditionally next season, then conditionally based on whether we hit our financial targets.
The fines: €5m guaranteed, plus up to €15m more if we miss targets. Could reach €20m total if we mess up badly.
What this means practically: Villa must become a selling club short-term. No more £50m Onana signings without major sales first.
The good news: If we comply early (hit targets by 2026), we can exit the settlement regime ahead of schedule. Miss by small amounts and penalties scale proportionally.
Bottom line: Villa's transfer strategy is in handcuffs for three years. Every signing must be balanced by sales, every target must be hit, or we face European exile.
I'm confused by this - does it not factor in overall revenue growth? Last season we will have made in excess of £100 million more than the previous season, and that is without factoring in major sales like Duran and now Ramsey. Accepting we have to break even, surely that still gives us room for manoeuvre as long as the wage bill is under control?
Post by: PeterWithe on August 15, 2025, 11:47:05 AM
Post by: London Villan on August 15, 2025, 11:47:49 AM
Post by: Clampy on August 15, 2025, 11:50:33 AM
Aston Villa have been fined £125k after accepting we breached the Premier League's multiball rules in five matches last season. https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1956297389989335373
Meanwhile, over at the Etihad....
Not wishing to stick up for the Etihad lot, I'm sure I read they were fined for taking too long to come out for the second half of games or summat.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 12:05:27 PM
Quote
Man City fined £1m for repeatedly delaying kick-off
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c628d92wnr9o
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 12:08:50 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyYujeaW8AcMv_k?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyYujeTXwAQ22I2?format=jpg&name=large)
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 12:11:32 PM
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 12:17:34 PM
Are we becoming footballs bad boys with all these fines. Surely someone will be going to clink soon ?
Mind you, it’s good to see us shifting the blame onto the fall guys…….sorry, ball boys.
Post by: PeterWithe on August 15, 2025, 12:18:40 PM
Post by: London Villan on August 15, 2025, 12:24:59 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on August 15, 2025, 01:26:12 PM
How about sanctions for referees that get crucial decisions wrong, costing the clubs tens of millions of pounds...
They do get sanctioned.
Post by: London Villan on August 15, 2025, 01:33:31 PM
Post by: OCD on August 15, 2025, 01:40:44 PM
Post by: Dave on August 15, 2025, 02:02:17 PM
^^
Especially when it’s not a fair and level playing field.
I keep banging on about it, and I know it’s monotonous, but the fact we are so hamstrung by pathetic financial governances, imposed by 2 different football authorities, while other clubs spend money with impunity purely because of who they are, is really pissing me off.
I appreciate this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but we don't want it to be "a fair and level playing field", we want the thumb that's currently on the scales to be moved a tiny bit more so that it benefits us more than it already is.
Other clubs spend money that we can't spend due to their greater revenues. Just like we've been spending money that clubs earning less than us can't spend. I'm sure, I dunno, Eintracht Frankfurt or Villarreal would love to have chucked a couple of hundred million and a few hundred thousand a week at new players when we were. But they can't.
Sporting CP's wage bill (now they've sold Gyokeres) is around one twelfth of ours. How about rather than levelling the playing field so that one more club can spend whatever they want, how about levelling it the other way so that a solid Premier League side isn’t able to spend ten times on wages what the best sides in most other countries can?
If the rules meant that everything was done on integrity, sporting merit, wise investment and club administration rather than the bigger clubs just bullying the rest, we'd probably still be pissing around in the Championship. But we're not, because we used our size and greater spending power to smack the likes of Bristol City and Middlesbrough out of our way. I imagine we'd have given their moaning about fairness and level playing fields pretty short-shrift at the time.
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 15, 2025, 02:15:33 PM
Post by: Stu82 on August 15, 2025, 02:17:04 PM
We are still being held back by the corrupt rules, but one of many.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 02:25:04 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 15, 2025, 02:34:42 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 03:46:29 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 15, 2025, 04:08:21 PM
Post by: ozzjim on August 15, 2025, 04:17:36 PM
The problem is for a club like us, while I accept Dave's point about a comparison to Sporting for example, they pretty much guarantee champions league, which gives them a budget that dwarfs most of their league. They invest well and sell well, but unlike us, don't also have 20 other sides with huge budgets to compete against to get to the CL money train again, making it easier for them to maintain. So for them, it's swings and roundabouts to us. For Villarreal, it's a different case again. I'm all of it though, UEFA imposing these financial rules does favour the super league clubs making the final stages of each competition.
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 04:40:44 PM
That’s where the unfairness lies.
I completely agree with Dave’s Points, and they are well made.
But maybe the argument to some of those points though is that Frankfurt or Villarreal (for instance) do not have 3 owners who are rich beyond our widest dreams and therefore have the means AND desire to invest whatever they want.
Post by: Villatillidie25 on August 15, 2025, 04:42:08 PM
And….the some of the clubs who became ‘the big 6’ by spending with impunity before the rules were developed are STILL breaking the rules or not being punished for past transgressions.
That’s where the unfairness lies.
I completely agree with Dave’s Points, and they are well made.
But maybe the argument to some of those points though is that Frankfurt or Villarreal (for instance) do not have 3 owners who are rich beyond our widest dreams and therefore have the means AND desire to invest whatever they want.
Didn’t Chelsea just defer their punishment by a year for a bigger fine?
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 04:44:27 PM
Probably……the point is they were still breaking the rules to get their ‘punishment’ in the first place.And….the some of the clubs who became ‘the big 6’ by spending with impunity before the rules were developed are STILL breaking the rules or not being punished for past transgressions.
That’s where the unfairness lies.
I completely agree with Dave’s Points, and they are well made.
But maybe the argument to some of those points though is that Frankfurt or Villarreal (for instance) do not have 3 owners who are rich beyond our widest dreams and therefore have the means AND desire to invest whatever they want.
Didn’t Chelsea just defer their punishment by a year for a bigger fine?
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 04:45:28 PM
Post by: andyh on August 15, 2025, 04:53:53 PM
We don't really want a level playing field, we want our very very rich owners to spend a lot more money than most other clubs can.Now, that I very much agree on
Post by: OCD on August 15, 2025, 04:55:33 PM
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 15, 2025, 05:17:12 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 05:29:19 PM
^^
Especially when it’s not a fair and level playing field.
I keep banging on about it, and I know it’s monotonous, but the fact we are so hamstrung by pathetic financial governances, imposed by 2 different football authorities, while other clubs spend money with impunity purely because of who they are, is really pissing me off.
I appreciate this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but we don't want it to be "a fair and level playing field", we want the thumb that's currently on the scales to be moved a tiny bit more so that it benefits us more than it already is.
Other clubs spend money that we can't spend due to their greater revenues. Just like we've been spending money that clubs earning less than us can't spend. I'm sure, I dunno, Eintracht Frankfurt or Villarreal would love to have chucked a couple of hundred million and a few hundred thousand a week at new players when we were. But they can't.
Sporting CP's wage bill (now they've sold Gyokeres) is around one twelfth of ours. How about rather than levelling the playing field so that one more club can spend whatever they want, how about levelling it the other way so that a solid Premier League side isn’t able to spend ten times on wages what the best sides in most other countries can?
If the rules meant that everything was done on integrity, sporting merit, wise investment and club administration rather than the bigger clubs just bullying the rest, we'd probably still be pissing around in the Championship. But we're not, because we used our size and greater spending power to smack the likes of Bristol City and Middlesbrough out of our way. I imagine we'd have given their moaning about fairness and level playing fields pretty short-shrift at the time.
Great post.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 05:29:42 PM
We've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
Another great post.
Post by: Percy McCarthy on August 15, 2025, 05:35:08 PM
^^
Especially when it’s not a fair and level playing field.
I keep banging on about it, and I know it’s monotonous, but the fact we are so hamstrung by pathetic financial governances, imposed by 2 different football authorities, while other clubs spend money with impunity purely because of who they are, is really pissing me off.
I appreciate this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but we don't want it to be "a fair and level playing field", we want the thumb that's currently on the scales to be moved a tiny bit more so that it benefits us more than it already is.
Other clubs spend money that we can't spend due to their greater revenues. Just like we've been spending money that clubs earning less than us can't spend. I'm sure, I dunno, Eintracht Frankfurt or Villarreal would love to have chucked a couple of hundred million and a few hundred thousand a week at new players when we were. But they can't.
Sporting CP's wage bill (now they've sold Gyokeres) is around one twelfth of ours. How about rather than levelling the playing field so that one more club can spend whatever they want, how about levelling it the other way so that a solid Premier League side isn’t able to spend ten times on wages what the best sides in most other countries can?
If the rules meant that everything was done on integrity, sporting merit, wise investment and club administration rather than the bigger clubs just bullying the rest, we'd probably still be pissing around in the Championship. But we're not, because we used our size and greater spending power to smack the likes of Bristol City and Middlesbrough out of our way. I imagine we'd have given their moaning about fairness and level playing fields pretty short-shrift at the time.
Yep. We want ‘the Big 6’ to become ‘the Great 8’ and then that’s it. Then it stops.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 15, 2025, 05:40:18 PM
And….the some of the clubs who became ‘the big 6’ by spending with impunity before the rules were developed are STILL breaking the rules or not being punished for past transgressions.
That’s where the unfairness lies.
I completely agree with Dave’s Points, and they are well made.
But maybe the argument to some of those points though is that Frankfurt or Villarreal (for instance) do not have 3 owners who are rich beyond our widest dreams and therefore have the means AND desire to invest whatever they want.
Didn’t Chelsea just defer their punishment by a year for a bigger fine?
So someone posted. But I suspect it is bullshit unless anyone wants to supply the proof from UEFA or Chelsea. Their current punishment is worse then ours because of them being censored the year before as well with neither the hotels or womens team sales being accepted by UEFA. For example we don't have the A list rules applied the second year if we hit certain levels where they have it applied the next two seasons even if they meet levels.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 15, 2025, 05:43:51 PM
Is this new? Or something we already know?
https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf (https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf)
I had posted the links and the extracts about the player A list rules previously. However lots of different threads of touched on them so Guessand, maybe Malen, Europa 25/26 is probably some of them.
Post by: Olneythelonely on August 15, 2025, 06:10:00 PM
Is this new? Or something we already know?
https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf (https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280b615680-700e46bcfcfa-1000/aston_villa_summary_version_3-year_sa_20250704174251.pdf)
I had posted the links and the extracts about the player A list rules previously. However lots of different threads of touched on them so Guessand, maybe Malen, Europa 25/26 is probably some of them.
I’ve just taken you off my banned list, so apologies for missing it.
Post by: Brazilian Villain on August 15, 2025, 06:48:30 PM
Good stuff.
Post by: brontebilly on August 15, 2025, 06:54:42 PM
Post by: ozzjim on August 15, 2025, 07:03:46 PM
Post by: PaulWinch again on August 15, 2025, 07:18:14 PM
How the bloody hell are Forest able to spend so much!?
PSR wise they’ve sold Elanga and they’re going into their first European season.
Post by: jwarry on August 15, 2025, 07:19:52 PM
How the bloody hell are Forest able to spend so much!?
You beat me to that! Spending £60m on Hutchison and McAtee and now making offers for Eico Lewis - when they only got docked points two seasons ago and have nowhere near our revenue
It doesn’t make sense
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 15, 2025, 07:41:17 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 07:47:49 PM
our net spend under Emery post Ramsey leaving will be something like £50m. In that time we have gone from relegation fodder to CL participants and grown our commercial revenues considerably.
Unfortunately, Emery hasn't always been our manager.
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 07:48:59 PM
We've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
And your solution is?
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 07:54:31 PM
We've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
And your solution is?
Getting on with it with a minimum of moaning, perhaps?
Post by: garyellis on August 15, 2025, 07:58:40 PM
Yes fuck em all. Let’s get behind the team tomorrow and keep fortress Villa Park. UTVWe've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
And your solution is?
Getting on with it with a minimum of moaning, perhaps?
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 08:13:26 PM
We've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
And your solution is?
Getting on with it with a minimum of moaning, perhaps?
But it isn't comparing like with like. We behave like that because the rules, set up to prevent teams like us competing, force us to.
It's the football equivalent of those "you can't moan about capitalism if you own a mobile phone" messages so beloved of imbeciles on Twitter.
It's absolutely right to moan about things that are shit.
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 08:19:26 PM
We've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
And your solution is?
Getting on with it with a minimum of moaning, perhaps?
But it isn't comparing like with like. We behave like that because the rules, set up to prevent teams like us competing, force us to.
It's the football equivalent of those "you can't moan about capitalism if you own a mobile phone" messages so beloved of imbeciles on Twitter.
It's not. It's the football equivalent of someone being caught cheating and trying to gain sympathy by tearfully reminding everyone that they have to live with what they've done for the rest of their lives.
We knew the rules, we spent the money, we fucked the easiest opportunity we'll ever have to get a one-off shot at getting into the CL. These are the consequences.
Edit: I don't like the rules, but we knew what they were when we started so it's on us. We ought to stop fucking moaning.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 15, 2025, 08:20:22 PM
I don't like the rules, but I am not sure what the better alternative is that allows us to flourish but does not allow Newcastle to buy lots of trophies.
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 08:27:08 PM
We've sold our ground to ourselves, we've sold our women's team, we've done mutually benficial transfers, we buy and sell players like they are merchandise where our only interest is resale, we charge obscene ticket prices, we've spent money most clubs can only dream of spending. We're not some plucky little club fighting against all odds, we're as big a part of the problem as other clubs. We are many of the things wrong with modern football.
And your solution is?
Getting on with it with a minimum of moaning, perhaps?
But it isn't comparing like with like. We behave like that because the rules, set up to prevent teams like us competing, force us to.
It's the football equivalent of those "you can't moan about capitalism if you own a mobile phone" messages so beloved of imbeciles on Twitter.
It's not. It's the football equivalent of someone being caught cheating and trying to gain sympathy by tearfully reminding everyone that they have to live with what they've done for the rest of their lives.
We knew the rules, we spent the money, we fucked the easiest opportunity we'll ever have to get a one-off shot at getting into the CL. These are the consequences.
Edit: I don't like the rules, but we knew what they were when we started so it's on us. We ought to stop fucking moaning.
That's just weird. You can use exactly the same argument to shut down any criticism of "let's just give all the nice stuff to rich people" politics.
I'm not really sure what your last paragraph means. These rules weren't implemented until well over a century after we started.
We basically have two choices, do what we can to make the best of the utterly stupid rules, or refuse to compete, fold and make everybody redundant.
I don't think choosing the former option means you never have the right to moan about rules which are set up to ensure the wealthiest stay at the top and fuck everybody else over ever again.
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 08:27:28 PM
yes, that is true.
I don't like the rules, but I am not sure what the better alternative is that allows us to flourish but does not allow Newcastle to buy lots of trophies.
Revenue-sharing, same as NFL.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 15, 2025, 08:29:17 PM
yes, that is true.
I don't like the rules, but I am not sure what the better alternative is that allows us to flourish but does not allow Newcastle to buy lots of trophies.
Revenue-sharing, same as NFL.
You mean equal revenue sharing?
The same as the PL with regards to foreign broadcasting money.
It'll never happen domestically though.
Post by: Ads on August 15, 2025, 08:29:20 PM
Given how well both ourselves and Newcastle have done, under restrictions that simply do not apply in a deliberate or meaningful way to our "peers", letting either side leverage the wealth they have would be highly problematic.
I hope Man City roundly smash their legal battle and we can take the gloves off and let slip the financial dreadnought.
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 08:30:14 PM
yes, that is true.
I don't like the rules, but I am not sure what the better alternative is that allows us to flourish but does not allow Newcastle to buy lots of trophies.
Revenue-sharing, same as NFL.
You mean equal revenue sharing?
The same as the PL with regards to foreign broadcasting money.
It'll never happen domestically though.
I mean sharing everything. Gate money, sponsorship, TV money. Same as in the NFL.
There is no reason why Man U should finish about fifty points behind Bournemouth but still get ten times as much money just because they attract loads of glory-hunting twats.
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 15, 2025, 08:31:27 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 08:32:40 PM
Quote
That's just weird. You can use exactly the same argument to shut down any criticism of "let's just give all the nice stuff to rich people" politics.
I'm not really sure what your last paragraph means. These rules weren't implemented until well over a century after we started.
We basically have two choices, do what we can to make the best of the utterly stupid rules, or refuse to compete, fold and make everybody redundant.
I don't think choosing the former option means you never have the right to moan about rules which are set up to ensure the wealthiest stay at the top and fuck everybody else over ever again.
CD, seriously pal, you're being silly. You're equating one of the top twenty richest organisations in its multi-billion dollar field and comparing it to the genuinely dispossessed?! Come the fuck on!
In this context 'we' does not refer to some fucking meeting under a shit fictional lamppost, it refers to our billionaire owners (inheritance; vulture capitalism).
Be serious.
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 08:36:07 PM
Post by: Sexual Ealing on August 15, 2025, 08:36:59 PM
Post by: cdbearsfan on August 15, 2025, 08:45:11 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 10:34:23 PM
The PL, Uefa, FIFA, Villa etc aren't going to change things much as they are all more popular, and generating far more money, than they ever have so there's no incentive to. Villa don't want a rule change that allows Bournemouth to spend as much as us, they want a change that allows us to spend even more than they can.
Post by: ozzjim on August 15, 2025, 10:42:41 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on August 15, 2025, 11:00:57 PM
I still don't get how Forest can go from points deductions on PSR to suddenly having £120 million to chuck about.
Because they have already sold £100mil of players I suspect.
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 11:03:44 PM
Post by: Somniloquism on August 15, 2025, 11:15:10 PM
Post by: ozzjim on August 15, 2025, 11:25:17 PM
Post by: PeterWithesShin on August 15, 2025, 11:30:51 PM
Post by: ozzjim on August 15, 2025, 11:38:11 PM
Post by: algy on August 15, 2025, 11:44:51 PM
Well said^^
Especially when it’s not a fair and level playing field.
I keep banging on about it, and I know it’s monotonous, but the fact we are so hamstrung by pathetic financial governances, imposed by 2 different football authorities, while other clubs spend money with impunity purely because of who they are, is really pissing me off.
I appreciate this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but we don't want it to be "a fair and level playing field", we want the thumb that's currently on the scales to be moved a tiny bit more so that it benefits us more than it already is.
Other clubs spend money that we can't spend due to their greater revenues. Just like we've been spending money that clubs earning less than us can't spend. I'm sure, I dunno, Eintracht Frankfurt or Villarreal would love to have chucked a couple of hundred million and a few hundred thousand a week at new players when we were. But they can't.
Sporting CP's wage bill (now they've sold Gyokeres) is around one twelfth of ours. How about rather than levelling the playing field so that one more club can spend whatever they want, how about levelling it the other way so that a solid Premier League side isn’t able to spend ten times on wages what the best sides in most other countries can?
If the rules meant that everything was done on integrity, sporting merit, wise investment and club administration rather than the bigger clubs just bullying the rest, we'd probably still be pissing around in the Championship. But we're not, because we used our size and greater spending power to smack the likes of Bristol City and Middlesbrough out of our way. I imagine we'd have given their moaning about fairness and level playing fields pretty short-shrift at the time.
Post by: BC Villain on August 15, 2025, 11:46:25 PM
We've sold £285m of players, have a net spend of plus 70 odd million, must have brought in 80m plus from the CL, got record sponsor deals, still managed to some how have a half decent side on the pitch, and we can't spend another £20m fee this window because of the rules, according to the local press people, because of the restrictions we're now under. None of it adds up with where even the wildest estimates can be for our wages to turnover now. How on earth did Chelsea get a 12 month extension and we get hit like this. Emery must be seething inside. All his hard work all his brilliance. When we sell Rogers to please some fuckwit at UEFA next summer to a club blatantly paying them off they'll get what they want. It's all shite. Barcelona get away with being totally broke and Uefa don't bat an eyelid.
Helps when clubs have a competent sporting director and team behind them. We have the comedy duo of Monchi and Vidagany who bad decision after bad decision, and now Emery almost encouraging bids for Martinez in his press conference today. Sorry, but serious questions need asking of the club from board down to manager now.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 15, 2025, 11:46:48 PM
Post by: dave.woodhall on August 15, 2025, 11:47:36 PM
We've sold £285m of players, have a net spend of plus 70 odd million, must have brought in 80m plus from the CL, got record sponsor deals, still managed to some how have a half decent side on the pitch, and we can't spend another £20m fee this window because of the rules, according to the local press people, because of the restrictions we're now under. None of it adds up with where even the wildest estimates can be for our wages to turnover now. How on earth did Chelsea get a 12 month extension and we get hit like this. Emery must be seething inside. All his hard work all his brilliance. When we sell Rogers to please some fuckwit at UEFA next summer to a club blatantly paying them off they'll get what they want. It's all shite. Barcelona get away with being totally broke and Uefa don't bat an eyelid.
Helps when clubs have a competent sporting director and team behind them. We have the comedy duo of Monchi and Vidagany who bad decision after bad decision, and now Emery almost encouraging bids for Martinez in his press conference today. Sorry, but serious questions need asking of the club from board down to manager now.
Welcome back.
Post by: Somniloquism on August 15, 2025, 11:49:25 PM
Post by: Toronto Villa on August 16, 2025, 12:40:50 AM
We've sold £285m of players, have a net spend of plus 70 odd million, must have brought in 80m plus from the CL, got record sponsor deals, still managed to some how have a half decent side on the pitch, and we can't spend another £20m fee this window because of the rules, according to the local press people, because of the restrictions we're now under. None of it adds up with where even the wildest estimates can be for our wages to turnover now. How on earth did Chelsea get a 12 month extension and we get hit like this. Emery must be seething inside. All his hard work all his brilliance. When we sell Rogers to please some fuckwit at UEFA next summer to a club blatantly paying them off they'll get what they want. It's all shite. Barcelona get away with being totally broke and Uefa don't bat an eyelid.
Helps when clubs have a competent sporting director and team behind them. We have the comedy duo of Monchi and Vidagany who bad decision after bad decision, and now Emery almost encouraging bids for Martinez in his press conference today. Sorry, but serious questions need asking of the club from board down to manager now.
Oh do fuck off you repetitive git.
Post by: paul_e on August 16, 2025, 01:16:01 AM
I've mentioned before, can ANYONE actually point me to Chelsea having a 12 month extension? Several people have posted they have done this but I can't find any official mention at all. As they already have a bigger, and more extended punishment then we do fo 2 years of finance issues, I would be surprised if it was allowed to them and no-one else.
I've linked it before but if you look for the actual ruling from UEFA it says that years 2-4 they need to comply with the same restrictions we have but this season they have to meet targets set in an interim business plan that was agreed between UEFA and the club.
So not complete freedom to do whatever they want but clearly it allows them to throw money around again.
Post by: kippaxvilla2 on August 16, 2025, 02:07:31 AM
Post by: Rory on August 16, 2025, 02:51:03 AM
Someone’s posted a stat up on Facebook saying we’ve sold £262m of players in the last 13 months. How on earth are we still not able to spend?!
Because wages to income ratio is the current issue, from what I understand?
Problem being that when we also need to break even on ingoing/outgoing player transfers, the most saleable assets are our youngsters who are at maximal potential and also on the lowest wages.
So every time we sell a low-wage squad player, we have to sign a player at the same level from elsewhere who is (understandably) holding out for higher wages to sign for us.
We as fans hope they are a sufficient improvement to justify the additional cost, but ultimately the wage bill will likely go up.
As others have said, we could really do with an outstanding crop of youngsters to come in and fill some places in the squad, if not the team.
Post by: KevinGage on August 16, 2025, 05:08:02 AM
Someone’s posted a stat up on Facebook saying we’ve sold £262m of players in the last 13 months. How on earth are we still not able to spend?!
While the entire system does feel genuinely rigged we don't help ourselves when we sign the likes of Onana for £50 million and Maatsen for the best part of £40 mill.