FFP

[VillaTim]

Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?

About £14m profit, and then you'd save his wages of £6.7m a year, so in the first year, £20m.

That seems ok.

[Somniloquism]

Let's say we got our money back on him (which is unlikely), how much is that going to help?

About £14m profit, and then you'd save his wages of £6.7m a year, so in the first year, £20m.

Doesn't that mean for PSR, he has only cost us those figues as well?

[simon ward 50]

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

They're not as bad as Everton?

[Dave]

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

They're not as bad as Everton?

It gives us something to semi-coherently bicker about while things on the pitch are going well?

[DeKuip]

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

It would be worse if it were a £150m loss.

Come the end of May this season will have bankrupted a few of us.

[Stu82]

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


The owners know what they are doing.

We are building a strong squad and improving the turnover, through European football, ticket prices, corporate, sponsorship.
Looking forward to seeing the accounts.

There you go positive.

[nick harper]

This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….

Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m

[Dogtanian]

We'll sort it all out with the all new Villa Bowl. 

[Pat Mustard]

This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….

Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m

It's the absolute pisstake that is Man City that is the root of the issue for everyone.  The sooner they are dealt with the better.

[lovejoy]

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

the lumpy profits/losses arise on selling players  (pure profit for selling a freebie, or big loss on selling an expensive player before their cost has been fully amortised (or I guess paying off a crap manager and team for the rest of their contracts). Otherwise, generally the costs are predictable, spread the transfer fees and include the wages. In your example we would only make the big loss is we chose to sell an expensive player for below book value. take the Grealish money, is we gave those 3 we bought 5 year contracts the £100m is spread at £20m a year for 5 years. It's manageable and predictable.

[Percy McCarthy]

There does seem to be a lot of confusion out there.

This is my laymans assessment (sorry Sexual).  The 22/23 accounts are both the third, second and first year of a 3 year rolling FFP period.

2023 - For the 3 year period ending 2023, Dogtanian has confirmed the key point, if we had breached FFP for that 3 year period we would already have been charged like Everton and Forest.

2024 - obviously last years loss makes complying with the 3 year period ending this June much more difficult - and that is where the speculation that we will have to sell by end June has come from.  Personally, I think that is highly unlikely as I just can't see us having made the Jan signings if that was true.  As many have pointed out our spending has gone up, but so has our income.  It may ultimately rest on our league position and progress un the UCL, but if we've left ourselves that tight then someone needs shooting.

2025 - IF we do end up selling a major player after June this year, I assume it will be to mainly to allow us more manoeuvrability to do some work on the squad for next season, as opposed to it being a fire sale.

 

You are kind of right, but I think you're underestimating the challenge this current year is going to pose.

Looking at twitter and the discussions around this, I think there is a bit of confusion over the term "Villa have got FFP problems".

Some people seem to think that means problems right now, ie that we are in breach - and we are not. So, strictly speaking, right now it isn't a problem, because as you said, of the nature of the three year rolling calculation.

The figures for the 3 years in these accounts are +300k, -£37m, -£120m. After all the deductions of allowables, we're inside the £105m.

Very good post paulie. I’ve only edited to point out more clearly that you’ve got those figures in the wrong order. It should read -£37m, +£300k, -£120m. I think it’s worth pointing out that the next figure to drop out of the three year period is the £37m loss rather than the small Joe sale profit.

[London Villan]

I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).

Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.

Just adds to the challenge we face.

I also think it was/is the underlying reason why we didn;t prioritise the FA Cup and LEague cups - The Champions League position is obviously first, but even the Conference league - despite it being a lesser trophy, would generate £25m for the club if we won it. Could be very important for next season's accounts...

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

Part of the reasoning for the reduction in Everton’s punishment was that it couldn’t be more severe than the mandatory 9 point punishment for going into administration.

[Footy-Vill]

If these issues are having the same affect on players and others in the club as they have on me, it does not bode well for the most critical games of the season.
I'd rather this financial issue didn't exist, but there's no evidence of irregularities or noncompliance, and points can still be subtracted if running at a loss. The ownership group is highly clever and capable, so I'm relieved, but any misinformation or poor advisors, no matter how slight, would have a significant impact on the playing staff right now and lead to losing players through sales.

I read and agree that Man City has destroyed this entire competition, which is really frustrating and disheartening when the football should be the most important, especially given our season and what they do with their outstanding record is a mockery
In actuality, it is the financial PSR that is affecting the beautiful game.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but if other clubs are being cited, it's just a matter of time before we are for points and maybe they do it to stop us getting in the Champions League which would be unbelievable and would have to be challenged. I just can't see that if we don't reach the Champions League and/or sell key assets we can't ensure sustainable finances.

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

The appeal committee specifically stated it had to be a less severe punishment than that for going into administration (9 points).