FFP

[PeterWithe]

Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount?  Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.

I think Juventus and Barcelona did something akin to this with swapping two players Pjanic and Arthur. Don't know if that loophole was closed afterward. 

[pablo_picasso]

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?

The cynic in me agrees with you, but I think the whole idea of FFP originated from that corrupt twat Platini in order to attempt stopping the dominance of English clubs in Europe.

The whole thing has been hijacked & distorted into a way of keeping the status quo as it is.

[pablo_picasso]

They'll sell Gallagher this summer for a decent fee, and that'll float it all for a bit longer.

They got 50 million for Mount because Man Utd were mugs. I can't see them getting anymore then 30mil for Gallagher at a push. Depending on how young they are bought before they become "free" money (Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs), the only other cash-in who came through their ranks is Reece James, but being as he has had to have surgery to fix a hamstring issue, I don't see him bringing in that much.

Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount?  Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.

The only problem in that scenario is we improve Chelsea by giving them Ramsey & we weaken ourselves by signing that over caffeinated Yorkshire Terrier, Gallagher.

Now Reece James, that would be a fairer swap...

[Jon Crofts]

Reece James is out injured more than Ramsey is.

[rougegorge]

There could come a point where we, along with other clubs, need to sell players, but then at this rate, hardly anybody will be able to buy the players as clubs would fear breaching the rules themselves - Man City and Saudi Arabia excepted. Man City have so many charges already that they stonewall and slow the whole process down and throw even more money at justifying it all. Even Chelsea will struggle to sell and buy.

[robbyfvillain]

Isn't the problem with FFP the timing of profit and losses. If any club has a fantastic year profit wise they will almost certainly fail FFP if they attempt to spend that profit. E.g
300m profit
200m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss

When the large profit drops out they will almost certainly fail FFP. It is even worse if they don't spend the money in the following year as they will fail FFP for more years than just one.

300m profit
20m loss
20m loss
200m loss
20 m loss
20 m loss

Am I missing something

[jwarry]

Isn't the problem with FFP the timing of profit and losses. If any club has a fantastic year profit wise they will almost certainly fail FFP if they attempt to spend that profit. E.g
300m profit
200m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss
20m loss

When the large profit drops out they will almost certainly fail FFP. It is even worse if they don't spend the money in the following year as they will fail FFP for more years than just one.

300m profit
20m loss
20m loss
200m loss
20 m loss
20 m loss

Am I missing something

If you are right that is just bizarre, especially when the whole point is to ensure clubs are sustainable

[garyfouroaks]

The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital  expenditure  on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is  not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a   twenty home game season..

[Smithy]

The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital  expenditure  on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is  not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a   twenty home game season..

Honestly, as much an extra £10m-ish a year would be lovely, it's not going to make a serious dent in catching up with the teams regularly in the top 6. We're behind all of these teams by £100m+ in revenue terms.  By all means lets grow the match-day revenue, and a bigger stadium definitely has benefits beyond just more ticket sales, but we're only going to compete long term by increasing our income away from the pitch.

[Pat Mustard]

The case for extra capacity is irresistible.
Capital  expenditure  on a stadium doesn't count, but income does.
Thus £150m on a new north Stand is  not only a legitimate spend, but an extra 10k capacity at £50 a ticket is £500k a game, or £10m over a   twenty home game season..

Is this part of the reason we won't do it now though?  Someone has already said that the owners are able to inject cash to cover the drop in capacity whilst a build is done under PFS rules, but at the moment I would assume that would have to be at the rate of some kind of average ticket price to prevent clubs form overstating - it is already known that Villa currently have one of the lowest spends per ticket in the Premier League.

Assuming we see another big increase to prices for next season, together with a larger amount of tickets ringfenced for GA+ we will see that price increase markedly.  If that has gone from, say, £27 per seat (which was the figure being banded about) to closer to £75 per seat that is potentially £10 million more per season that can be used to comply with PFS.

[Footy-Vill]

Disturbing reading that it's a loss.

Club has come out and said it’s within the PSR and FFP remit and within ‘their strategic business plan' but isn't going to say that.

[VillaTim]

Has anyone managed to put a positive spin on the numbers yet. (full stop)

[PaulWinch again]

I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.

Agreed I’m not sure 6 points should be seen as the benchmark punishment, more of a guideline of what might happen in a specific circumstance. It would be very naive to think a club can basically flout the rules however they wish and 6 points is all they’d face.

[Gareth]

I think an attitude of 'fuck it. We'll just take the deduction because we're brilliant now we've made new signings' would ensure a deduction of much more than 6 points.

Agreed I’m not sure 6 points should be seen as the benchmark punishment, more of a guideline of what might happen in a specific circumstance. It would be very naive to think a club can basically flout the rules however they wish and 6 points is all they’d face.

We’ll see that in next few weeks by what happens to Forest and the repeat offenders Everton…if it’s a couple of 6’s most will see it as a benchmark….the original 10 is a proper deterrent to most, 6 most of the top dozen clubs would back themselves to overcome I’d guess

[jon collett]

10 was reduced to 6 because Everton said their error was inadvertent and that was accepted on appeal.

The benchmark for a deliberate breach would still be 10.