FFP

[Smirker]

I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?

In a word, are we fucked?

Does it look bad or are we still unsure?

[Somniloquism]

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.

[ChicagoLion]

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.

[ChicagoLion]

I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?

In a word, are we fucked?

Does it look bad or are we still unsure?

Impossible to say until the accounts are released.

[Somniloquism]

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.

[Percy McCarthy]

I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?

In a word, are we fucked?

Does it look bad or are we still unsure?

Impossible to say until the accounts are released.

I very much doubt it.

[ChicagoLion]

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.

Capital is not the problem though, hence the new investors.
I do not see how these are related, part of the profitability problem is because of a lack of investment/ development  of infrastructure.

[Villan82]

Yeah, I men for 18 months-24 months all the talk at Villa was that the redevelopment was our way to bridge the gaps financially and then the Vice President casually mentions in a soft focus internal PR video that we aren't doing it any more.

It would be nice to have some of the dots connected because it simply makes no sense

[caster troy]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[Rigadon]

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?

[caster troy]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[Villan82]

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.

[Smirker]

I don't follow the finances and I haven't been reading the thread but cna someone summarise what's going on?

In a word, are we fucked?

Does it look bad or are we still unsure?

Impossible to say until the accounts are released.

OK thank you mate.