FFP

[kippaxvilla2]

Presumably Manure will be investigated for over paying to ‘secure’ Anthony.

[andyh]

The inference in that 'article' that Villa are somehow manipulating the rules or cheating is fucking disgusting 

[Ads]

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.

[upthevile1874!]

It's a load of nonsense!

[Dogtanian]

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

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?

[Hookeysmith]

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

[chrisw1]

I don't think there's anything wrong with our sale prices.

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.

[Hookeysmith]

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.

[Mr Diggles]

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

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

[Ads]

It's not the Premier League, they've ratified the transfers and said absolutely nothing. It's a client journalist for Man United.

[Dogtanian]

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

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.

[edgysatsuma89]

Awww, poor Yanited can't pull Everton's pants down now. Such a shame.

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[Paul.S]

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.

[London Villan]

Bigger picture - stopping manu from improving their squad is also a benefit too. We've also nicked a decent player of another rival with the Maatsen signing.