FFP

[VILLA MOLE]

I enjoyed listening to Simon Jordan talking about the dreaded PSR - he  made some good points about the cartel!

I do like listening to him on Finance and he recognises the cartel issues  , but he seems to change his mind on whether a club should have restrictions on its spending.  He previously lambasted Chelsea and Man City for driving prices up , but now says a club should be able to invest in its future ?   

[ADVILLAFAN]

Nah, he's a wanker.

Definite wanker. I reckon Josef Fritzl could say a few positives about the Villa and some us would be like 'you know what, he's alright'.

Well Fred West was supposedly a Villa fan....

[Hookeysmith]

I like Simon Jordan.  He hated the porn dwarves and talks a lot of sense.  There I’ve said it.

Me to - i like to listen to him about general football governance as he clearly knows what he is talking about. He also puts tosser's like Jim Wanky White in his place quite often.

[PaulWinch again]

Nah, he's a wanker.

Definite wanker. I reckon Josef Fritzl could say a few positives about the Villa and some us would be like 'you know what, he's alright'.

Well Fred West was supposedly a Villa fan....

It’s a bit like the rules in general. If they were still equally punitive, just in a different way, and Villa were on the side benefitting then I suspect the noise would be significantly reduced. That’s not a criticism, but I do think a lot of the conspiracy stuff is borne out of how it impacts Villa rather than actual fairness. I don’t think the rules are particularly there in a targeted way to maintain the “big 6”, I just think it’s a very tricky thing to do in an equitable way and like lots of rules the implementation isn’t great and unintended consequences haven’t been thought about enough.

[Sexual Ealing]

Nah, he's a wanker.

Definite wanker. I reckon Josef Fritzl could say a few positives about the Villa and some us would be like 'you know what, he's alright'.

Well Fred West was supposedly a Villa fan....

It’s a bit like the rules in general. If they were still equally punitive, just in a different way, and Villa were on the side benefitting then I suspect the noise would be significantly reduced. That’s not a criticism, but I do think a lot of the conspiracy stuff is borne out of how it impacts Villa rather than actual fairness. I don’t think the rules are particularly there in a targeted way to maintain the “big 6”, I just think it’s a very tricky thing to do in an equitable way and like lots of rules the implementation isn’t great and unintended consequences haven’t been thought about enough.

You think?!

[PaulWinch again]

Yeah obvious I know, and that’s fine - I’m only really bothered about how it impacts Villa too. But then don’t conflate that with a push for fairness or an attempt to battle some grand conspiracy.

[Sexual Ealing]

Exactly right.

[AV82EC]

Yeah obvious I know, and that’s fine - I’m only really bothered about how it impacts Villa too. But then don’t conflate that with a push for fairness or an attempt to battle some grand conspiracy.

Is the correct analysis. There is no anti-Villa conspiracy here but the rules as they stand are "unfair" for a club and clubs like us in our position. The correct approach is to influence and suggest for changes in the rules to make them fairer not moan like a bunch of entitled toddlers that the whole worlds against us.

[Monty]

Beh, I don't know, it's a trade off. Like the current rules obviously favour the already-rich, which is why there's so little desire to change the rules, and that's bullshit of course. However, a set of rules that makes Saudi-owned Newcastle scrabble about so much can't be getting everything wrong.

[AV82EC]

Beh, I don't know, it's a trade off. Like the current rules obviously favour the already-rich, which is why there's so little desire to change the rules, and that's bullshit of course. However, a set of rules that makes Saudi-owned Newcastle scrabble about so much can't be getting everything wrong.

I agree which is why i think some of us are suggesting that the rules need tweaking and not throwing in the bin. There have been plenty of suggestions on this thread around potential changes to make things fairer from escrow bonds to match investment to ensuring debt is a consideration in financial calculations. 

[eamonn]

Nah, he's a wanker.

Definite wanker. I reckon Josef Fritzl could say a few positives about the Villa and some us would be like 'you know what, he's alright'.

Well Fred West was supposedly a Villa fan....

Wa heard singing "I don't care about Villa. Villa don't care about me" before he hung himself on New Year's Day.

[paul_e]

Beh, I don't know, it's a trade off. Like the current rules obviously favour the already-rich, which is why there's so little desire to change the rules, and that's bullshit of course. However, a set of rules that makes Saudi-owned Newcastle scrabble about so much can't be getting everything wrong.

I agree which is why i think some of us are suggesting that the rules need tweaking and not throwing in the bin. There have been plenty of suggestions on this thread around potential changes to make things fairer from escrow bonds to match investment to ensuring debt is a consideration in financial calculations. 

the 2 big failings of FFP/PSR are that it doesn't account for debt and that it encourages selling academy prospects. I'm broadly ok with the system if it was tweaked to address those problems.

SCR also has 2 failings, it ignores debt even more obviously but the player impact is different because it encourages you to sell the big earners and high fee players and doesn't care if you make a loss because removing the wages and amortised fee is all that matters.

Having both at the same time is particularly shit because it means SCR encourages you to release/sell cheap when you have players like Coutinho but that has a negative impact on PSR so, if you're running things close, you have to then sell a Ramsey to make up the difference. That all leaves you with money in the bank but SCR doesn't care about that either so you can't even make the most of the big windfall unless you have plenty of headroom in your wages. Of course those wages are compared to revenue which can differ significantly from season to season if you aren't making the champions league every year so you have to budget as if you aren't successful or accept that any players you bring in for Europe will either have to be loans or risk being sold if you don't qualify again.

On balance I prefer SCR but I'd add a percentage of both debt and trading balance on top of the wage costs as part of the calculations, so if you're Man Utd sitting on £1bn of debt and a net spend of £200m+ you see another £250m added on to the calculation but if you're Bournemouth and have made £100m+ in profits you can use some of that to offset part of the wage package for a new signing.