FFP

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

[Baldy]

We have financially savvy owners who can afford the best accountancy and legal teams in the world. Loopholes and ambiguity are their forte and if need be, will be exploited to the full.

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.

[aldridgeboy]

I’m sure I listened to a football finance expert on a podcast a few weeks ago saying they could bring in new FFP/PSR rules in by the summer. The feeling that all clubs suffering would make it a relatively easy vote ( or something like that )

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 ?

[Dante Lavelli]

I think the FFP/PSR rules are, in theory, good for the game but there should be a link between the top clubs spending and those at the bottom. 
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.

[Percy McCarthy]

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?

[sid1964]

If our wage bill is nearly £200 million per year, that is unbelievable (Doug will be turning in his grave).

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...)

[Ads]

If we've done ~£220m last year, then a run to the final and a 4th place finish ought to be worth another £30m (West Ham made £22m out of winning it). Gives some indication that Champions League money on top would push us on a lot again.

If we can square the circle in the meantime by only losing players we'd like to lose...

[AV82EC]

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”.

[Rigadon]

As I've said before, the punishment is 6 points.  So, if we have a say in it, let's keep our players and accept we need to beat Man Utd twice more than we did this year. 

[paul_e]

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.

[AV82EC]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[AV82EC]

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?

[Forge10]

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.

[Baldy]

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).