FFP

[Mr Diggles]

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.

[Hookeysmith]

Didnt that cockend Risdale at Leeds mortgage the club after one season in the Champions League to the sum of being in it every year for the next 25 - madness

[ChicagoLion]

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.

Not really, Enron involve fraud and deception.
This is potentially exuberant valuation practices.

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[Duncan Shaw]

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.

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[kippaxvilla2]

If they want to invent rules that are seemingly inflexible against even inflation over 12 years then I would mud wrestle my own Gran if it meant that we found a way to continue to be competitive without actually breaking said rules.

[kippaxvilla2]

Good piece this. 

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.

[AV82EC]

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.

[Ads]

Fucking hell, we haven't played those gimps in 6 years!

[Dave]

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.

[Ads]

Oh yeah! That would be the second season back, as we couldn't attend the game.

[PaulWinch again]

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.

[paul_e]

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.