FFP

[Monty]

From the horse's mouth:

https://archive.ph/OWEUc

"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."

That's my kinda rule change.

Palace. A great bunch of lads.

[dalians umbrella]

From the horse's mouth:

https://archive.ph/OWEUc

"The move by Palace is regarded as an alternative plan that would help Villa but not change the general PSR limit."

That's my kinda rule change.

Palace. A great bunch of lads.

Again, this is why this forum needs a reaction button.

[paul_e]

To be fair it's a rule change that makes sense for everyone, the only clubs I could see being against it are Man Utd and Chelsea who will be better off under the current setup.

[OCD]

At the last Premier League meeting, they discussed moving away from the PSR model for the 2025/26 season and that's likely to be voted through at the next meeting, next week. Only ourselves, Man City and Man Utd weren't in favour of the change, and it's believed that the 3 clubs wanted to be able to spend even more if they wished.

Immediately after that meeting, there were reports that we were going to propose changing the allowable loss over 3 years from £105m to £135m. Given how there seems to be a consensus across the league to be able to spend more and how many of the clubs are either in trouble with FFP or walking a tightrope, this should pass.

Palace's proposal seems to be about fairness and may gather some support but you would think that if it's a choice between the 2 proposals, there would be more broad support for increasing the allowable loss to £135m for the last year of PSR.

[Percy McCarthy]

The fundamentals are not the parroted ‘Villa are fucked’ narratives, nor the oft-repeated ‘JJ is pure profit’ misunderstanding - so are SJM, Luiz, Tielemans, Kamara, Konsa, Watkins, Big Emi, Bailey - but the analysis from Swiss Ramble that we’re comfortably under the limit and the fact that revenue will nearly double next season from that recorded in the last but one set of accounts.

[paul_e]

The important fundamentals are not the parroted ‘Villa are fucked’ narratives, nor the oft-repeated ‘JJ is pure profit’ misunderstanding - so are SJM, Luiz, Tielemans, Kamara, Konsa, Watkins, Big Emi, Bailey - but the analysis from Swiss Ramble that we’re comfortably under the limit and the fact that revenue will nearly double next season from that recorded in the last but one set of accounts.

Absolutely, almost all of the "they're fucked" analysis comes with very little actual evidence beyond the fact that we announced a big loss.

[Ads]

What have Swiss Ramble said?

The accounts for 24/25 with Champions League, Adidas and Betano will likely show £300m+ turnover. Crazy stuff.

[Percy McCarthy]

What have Swiss Ramble said?

The accounts for 24/25 with Champions League, Adidas and Betano will likely show £300m+ turnover. Crazy stuff.

They broke down the three-year cycle including the allowable losses (Covid etc) and put it at £95m loss over that time.

And yes, that’s what I meant by nearly double. The last but one accounts had it at about £178m I think. Last ones reported £214m. The ones for the season just gone will probably hit a quarter of a billion, then, as you say £300m +

[Ads]

Cheers

[pablo_picasso]

What have Swiss Ramble said?

The accounts for 24/25 with Champions League, Adidas and Betano will likely show £300m+ turnover. Crazy stuff.

They broke down the three-year cycle including the allowable losses (Covid etc) and put it at £95m loss over that time.

And yes, that’s what I meant by nearly double. The last but one accounts had it at about £178m I think. Last ones reported £214m. The ones for the season just gone will probably hit a quarter of a billion, then, as you say £300m +

That is good news...

And pretty much what the club have said all along.

[kippaxvilla2]

On the VAR proposal, I reckon it is because a small club Wolves are proposing it, it will get voted down.  If we had put it forward then everyone would have taken heed.  Instead the plucky neighbours get sympathy but nothing changes.

[Percy McCarthy]

A bit more on the current three year cycle, with the headline accounts reported figures and figures with the allowable deductibles included in brackets.

2023 - £120m loss (£93m loss)
2022 - £400k profit (£22m profit)
2021 - £37m loss (£24m loss).

So, when 2024 accounts are reported, they will join a £71m loss in the three-year cycle, meaning a £34m loss after deductible items will be allowed.

[AV82EC]

A bit more on the current three year cycle, with the headline accounts reported figures and figures with the allowable deductibles included in brackets.

2023 - £120m loss (£93m loss)
2022 - £400k profit (£22m profit)
2021 - £37m loss (£24m loss).

So, when 2024 accounts are reported, they will join a £71m loss in the three-year cycle, meaning a £34m loss after deductible items will be allowed.

Unless of course the allowable limit is voted through to £135m which would mean a £64m loss is allowable.

Thanks for posting all these figures up Percy it’s valuable data for the stats nerds among us.

[kippaxvilla2]

Meaning we are sailing close then?

[Sexual Ealing]

Any ideas if/how we're going to comply with UEFA's 70% wages to turnover FFP rule?