FFP

[ozzjim]

It's not all doom and gloom, but that still doesn't make it 'fair'.

But what we seem to be asking for wouldn't make it "fair" either. Just unfair in a way that helps us rather hindering us

Ask a Brentford or Palace fan whether giving a couple more teams the leeway to spend another half a billion each on their squads would make the league more fair or not.

I'm not convinced it makes it less fair than the current which is basically you could spend what you like to buy success until 2015 or so, the cartel 6 didn't like it and these rules got voted in. There has to be a lever whereby ambition can be matched with growth to bridge that gap, or we are essentially accepting that the top 6 because of historic size and current revenue are now untouchable.

We need revenue well over £400m a season to start competing, even then that is lower than some of their wage bill.

[Dave]

It's not all doom and gloom, but that still doesn't make it 'fair'.

But what we seem to be asking for wouldn't be "fair" either. Just unfair in a way that helps us rather hindering us

Ask a Brentford or Palace fan whether giving a couple more teams the leeway to spend another half a billion each on their squads would make the league more fair or not.

I'd be happy with it being a level playing field - teams should be able to spend the same amount on transfers and wages, not having it linked to revenue streams in the Far East.

So all that means is that European clubs become more attractive to players, the best players stop coming to (or staying in) the Premier League, other leagues become more popular, more money flows elsewhere and we're checking in every few weeks to see how Morgan Rogers is getting in at Leipzig or Marseille.

Or if you mean UEFA should make that a rule, if the thing that we want is for Villa to become even bigger and even more successful, the last thing we want us for equivalent seized clubs in other leagues to be pulled up to our current financial level.

[The Edge]

Was chatting about FFP/PSR in the pub at the weekend, and someone made a point that I'm not entirely sure I have a good argument against.  FFP was brought in to stop clubs going bankrupt (or face the risk of it), which is preventing wealthy owners from investing amounts that they would like to, and closing the shop to those who built commercial juggernaughts in the pre FFP days.

So, if the aim is to stop clubs going bankrupt and spending beyond their means, why not have all financial transactions underwritten by owners and their personal wealth?  A bit like when parents will sometimes underwrite a loan for their kids in the early days of their financial independence.  The money still gets paid by the club, but if at any point they CAN'T pay it, the liability automatically transfers to the club owner in a personal capacity (or their business if a business owns the club).  That liability can be for transfers AND wages.

It removes the possibility of a club being bankrupted by careless spending, or going out of business due to their debts, as at no point would a default on money owed be "owed" by the club itself.

I don't know enough to know why this is a bad idea and why it wouldn't work in practise (aside from the obvious that it would open the purse strings massively for rich clubs and leave the rest behind).  Though I'm sure there are reason why it wouldn't work.  Just thought it is was an interesting thought experiment as an alternative to FFP if the genuine aim is "protect clubs from going bust".

I had an idea similar to this and we also chatted about it in the pub but I can't remember if I posted it on here. My idea was that any investor into a club must agree a bond depending on the club and the size of it's operations. They would agree the amount with the PL and put it in place before they are allowed to take over a club. This would then be used to keep said club going financially should they decide to leave. Let's face it no top Premier league club is going to go bust because owners would usually only be selling up to a bigger investor at a profit and they would redeem their bond and the new owners would have to then have a similar agreement with the FA. The other thing I would do is ban all state ownership of clubs otherwise a club like Newcastle with no financial restraints would just blow everyone out of the water and we'd be back to square one. I'm just spitballing tbh as I have a very limited understanding of big finance but the system as it stands has just guaranteed the Greedy6 domination. Having said all that Palace have built a very good team under the current restraints but it's highly unlikely they will challenge for the title any time soon.

Newcastle would catch Man City and that would be that.

I know that's why I said I'd want a ban on state ownership of clubs.

[ozzjim]

Taking all that away, and say fine, accept this fuckwittery as it is from UEFA, I still have a fundamental issue with grasping how we are in such a hole.

End of last season widely reported our wage bill was at £250M, so roughly needing a turnover of £325M. With sales and CL money, surely we're going to hit very very close to £320-350m last season, would be around that marker. Since then we've sold or released or reduced the best part of £750k a week off that wage bill, so let's go with £35m reduction as a ballpark. At that figure we'll need a turnover around £280m, not counting in the sales we've made etc.  It will be fascinating to see, with a bet spend in the bottom 6 last 3 years nearly, how were not easily compliant next summer, and if so if UEFA remove any of the draconian measures they've put in this summer.

[Somniloquism]

Forest seem to be building a decent squad.

I guess they can do this as they have been sensible with the wages they are offering.

Forest took a gamble. They pissed all over PSR and just took the hit they knew was coming. It certainly paid off for them.

Yep, their gamble was made on the hope their points deduction wasn't more then a few points AND none of the promoted teams did well. They finished on 32 with the deduction, 18th that season was 26 but in the 10 years before, they would have only survived one other time on those points.

Do we have public records on their SCR because until they hit Euro competition, UEFA wouldn't really be bothered on their wages.

[Percy McCarthy]

Turnover for last season was somewhere between £360/370m according to Heck.

EDIT: this was posted in response to ozzjim.

[Sexual Ealing]

Taking all that away, and say fine, accept this fuckwittery as it is from UEFA, I still have a fundamental issue with grasping how we are in such a hole.

End of last season widely reported our wage bill was at £250M, so roughly needing a turnover of £325M. With sales and CL money, surely we're going to hit very very close to £320-350m last season, would be around that marker. Since then we've sold or released or reduced the best part of £750k a week off that wage bill, so let's go with £35m reduction as a ballpark. At that figure we'll need a turnover around £280m, not counting in the sales we've made etc.  It will be fascinating to see, with a bet spend in the bottom 6 last 3 years nearly, how were not easily compliant next summer, and if so if UEFA remove any of the draconian measures they've put in this summer.

Isn't the problem that the profits you outline have to be balanced against the losses in the previous two years, hence us continuing to reside in a town called Fucked?

[The Edge]

I thought there was a proposal that clubs would only be allowed to spend a multiple of whatever the club with the lowest earnings was. I'm not sure if that makes things better or worse. Although I think we voted against it.

As it stands a club like ours needs somewhere between 5-10 years of making good management appointments, with no mistakes on major player recruitment, to sell players you'd prefer to keep for profit, to perform above your abilities on the pitch & make massive improvements in all revenue streams. And if we try to improve our chances of competing by selling the women's team, we're considered to be cheats.

Whilst a club like Man Utd, can stink the place out, appoint shit managers, overpay fees & salaries for players who underperform & are then sold at massive losses. All whilst serving massive debts. But they can still spend multiples of what we can & to cap it off, then ask for public funding to build a new stadium.

It's because they have the luxury of having the biggest worldwide network of plastic glory hunters who are paying memberships for MUTV and buying a new replica shirt every time they sign the latest messiah. Liverpool are in the same position. I hate that them bastards can stink the league out for over 10 years and still dwarf our spending power because of it. And if they ever get one penny of government funding for a new stadium I will rally football fans from far and wide so we can storm parliament then raze it to the ground.

[Crown Hill]

FWIW Borson said SCR wasn’t the main concern for Villa with UEFA and there were other conditions which meant we needed to sell. This was the post I asked people on here to analyse although nobody really went into any detail.

[john2710]

In 2024 we were ranked 17th in the Deloitte money league with a revenue of €310m, we should have achieved €400m+ for 2025. That would put us close to the top 10.

We're just going to have to consolidate our position & continue to inch our way up that league table, for now, there is no other way.

I think we're using this summer to clear the decks & comply with the rules. This sets the foundations for us to continue to compete over the next 2-3 years. Bearing in mind that a few of our key players will need replacing over that period of time.

Emery got a squad with similar if not less quality than we have now to achieve top 4. He's going to have to continue to create miracles, either that or we just give up.

[aev]

It's not all doom and gloom, but that still doesn't make it 'fair'.

But what we seem to be asking for wouldn't be "fair" either. Just unfair in a way that helps us rather hindering us

Ask a Brentford or Palace fan whether giving a couple more teams the leeway to spend another half a billion each on their squads would make the league more fair or not.

I'd be happy with it being a level playing field - teams should be able to spend the same amount on transfers and wages, not having it linked to revenue streams in the Far East.

So all that means is that European clubs become more attractive to players, the best players stop coming to (or staying in) the Premier League, other leagues become more popular, more money flows elsewhere and we're checking in every few weeks to see how Morgan Rogers is getting in at Leipzig or Marseille.

Or if you mean UEFA should make that a rule, if the thing that we want is for Villa to become even bigger and even more successful, the last thing we want us for equivalent seized clubs in other leagues to be pulled up to our current financial level.

Just because a club is allowed to spend, it doesn't mean they have to.

At the moment, if a club wants to spend like some other clubs, it isn't allowed.

UEFA probably don't want the most watched global league becoming even more powerful, which was why I think the breakaway league got traction with some of the bigger clubs in the other leagues?

[SaddVillan]

From The Athletic

ASTON VILLA STILL DARE TO DREAM, BUT FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE IS CHOKING AMBITION

Another tifo cascaded from the Holte End before kick-off.

It was Unai Emery smiling and clapping, with his players in the background. Above, the caption: “No limits to our dreams.”

The message was meant to inspire and show that, under manager Emery, Aston Villa have immeasurably raised the bar of their expectations. Yet, at the same time, the tifo jarred.

Below the text and just behind Emery’s head on the banner was Jacob Ramsey. The tifo had been made before the club agreed to let their homegrown lad, born six miles from Villa Park, join Saturday’s opponents. Post-match, Newcastle United’s manager Eddie Howe called Ramsey an “outstanding player”. After all, he was soon going to be theirs.

Fundamentally, Ramsey’s departure is a representation of how Villa’s dreams are being limited or, at the very least, curbed. The 24-year-old was an asset Villa had to sell as a result of various financial restrictions, all blessed with their own acronym.

This has been the summer of (financial) discontent; a subject so evident and stifling that Emery had no choice but to refer to it in his programme notes. His words, as it happened, contradicted the tifo’s message.

“We cannot avoid that the summer has been challenging because the financial rules were conditioning our investment in the squad,” he wrote. “Financial control rules came to football to avoid bankruptcies and payment defaults with a good purpose.

“But as professionals we should review it, as this good tool will become a limitation for clubs that are doing good management, who’ll never be allowed to dream and get higher goals because the revenue, key for these financial rules, needs time to come to reality after sporting success.”

The dreams Emery has fostered since his arrival in November 2022 have endured a reality check this summer. Instead of strengthening a squad that only missed out on Champions League football on goal difference, Villa’s focus has centred on complying with UEFA’s squad cost rules (SCR), reducing a wage bill that previously accounted for 91 per cent of overall revenue down to, at most, 70 per cent.

Villa are a victim of their success. They are entering their third successive season of participating in European competition. UEFA rules state clubs can lose no more than €60million (£51.6m; $70.1m) over that period, plus a possible €10m per year if European football’s governing body deems them to be in a ‘good’ financial state.

UEFA’s ‘football earnings rule’ is a tighter version of the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR), which permits losses of up to £105m ($142m) across such a period.

Anyone under the assumption they could forget the acronyms and financial red tape for 90 minutes for the first league fixture of the campaign would have been disappointed. A day usually soaked in optimism only served to underline those concerns.

With Newcastle the better side, albeit painfully short of a centre-forward, both sides played within themselves. This was not a day for players with a spring in their step or a game to welcome new faces. Marco Bizot was Villa’s best player and the only summer signing to feature, due to Emiliano Martinez’s one-game suspension. Bizot’s acquisition as deputy goalkeeper may be the only positional upgrade at Villa this summer.

As the second half meandered until Ezri Konsa’s sending off, both sets of supporters were united in their frustrations. A catalogue of chants echoed around Villa Park, all critical of the Premier League. Claims of corruption and sheer disdain for PSR were part of the playlist. Two fanbases found mutual ground, sympathetic to the other’s situation, with Newcastle previously unable to sign a senior player for three consecutive windows and Villa suffering similar inhibitions this summer.

Villa’s window was always going to be tough. Senior figures told The Athletic at the end of May that incomings were low down the list of priorities, with the primary concern being to remedy financial pressures.

Unavoidably, though, it has left Villa undercooked and uninspiring, as evidenced in Saturday’s goalless draw.

This was only “day one”, as Emery puts it, of a 38-match campaign. The road ahead is long. Yet the general flatness was an extension of Villa’s summer. Zero shots in the first half did not enchant a Villa Park crowd that is normally in thrall to this Emery vintage.

As their manager voiced in the aftermath, it was concerning how many duels Villa lost in the first half. They were fortunate not to concede early on. The haywire passing — at one stage, their pass accuracy percentage was 15 percentage points lower than Newcastle’s — was not in keeping with the on-ball precision for which Villa have been recognised.

The weight of evidence indicates that Emery’s side, in defiance of their ongoing challenges, will not collapse completely because of an inherent robustness. Even when down to 10 men, Villa were well organised and negated Newcastle. They are now 22 competitive games unbeaten in all competitions at home — their longest run since 1977 (24 games) — showing the “consistency” Emery is at pains to relay in most press conferences.

This was a goalless draw devoid of entertainment and quality, but revealing in what it lacked. For Newcastle, it was Alexander Isak. For Villa, it was collective inspiration, usually found in the transfer market. Both teams have similar ambitions — they have broken into the top six but want to do so regularly. They have owners willing to spend but are stunted by PSR.

The upshot is palpable, none more so than for the adults who paid £77 to sit in the Holte End or those in the Doug Ellis or Trinity Stand, where tickets could range up to £82. The squeeze is on and if you are not a traditional ‘Big Six’ club, a bottleneck approaches. Those with revenues not at the requisite level will have to check their aspirations.

This summer has been a paradox. Turbulent, yet stuck in a state of inertia, fighting off possible sanctions and regression on the pitch.

Villa will dream as long as Emery is there, but those dreams are being disrupted by the stresses that disturb a good night’s sleep.

[SaddVillan]

I thought there was a proposal that clubs would only be allowed to spend a multiple of whatever the club with the lowest earnings was. I'm not sure if that makes things better or worse. Although I think we voted against it.

As it stands a club like ours needs somewhere between 5-10 years of making good management appointments, with no mistakes on major player recruitment, to sell players you'd prefer to keep for profit, to perform above your abilities on the pitch & make massive improvements in all revenue streams. And if we try to improve our chances of competing by selling the women's team, we're considered to be cheats.

Whilst a club like Man Utd, can stink the place out, appoint shit managers, overpay fees & salaries for players who underperform & are then sold at massive losses. All whilst serving massive debts. But they can still spend multiples of what we can & to cap it off, then ask for public funding to build a new stadium.

It's because they have the luxury of having the biggest worldwide network of plastic glory hunters who are paying memberships for MUTV and buying a new replica shirt every time they sign the latest messiah. Liverpool are in the same position. I hate that them bastards can stink the league out for over 10 years and still dwarf our spending power because of it. And if they ever get one penny of government funding for a new stadium I will rally football fans from far and wide so we can storm parliament then raze it to the ground.

In the States owners of NFL clubs regularly "blackmail" local authorities into funding new stadiums fie them with the threat of moving the franchise somewhere else.

ManU have run into problems acquiring a piece  of land near Mould Trafford that is needed for the new ground. It's owned by Network Rail who apparently want £400m for it.. Yanited have budgetted £40-50m. And immediately Andy Burnham - Evrrton supporting Mayor of Greater Manchester has raised the prospect of a Compulsory Purchase Order to help Yanited get the land 

He's been blinded by the promise of 82,000 new jobs and 17,000 new homes .And he's talking of setting up a 'mayoral development corporation' to deliver the new stadium and wider regeneration plans.

ManU will I'm sure  spend as little as possible on the ground itself and rely on public funds to build all the surrounding areas/access roads etc.

[Russ aka Big Nose]

I think there are several fundamental considerations. My comments are about them rather than the detail and our precise position right now:

• Everyone recognises there needs to be some rules to prevent clubs going out of business whilst also providing some vague sense of being a 'level playing field' - views will differ on far the PL is from that.
• There are various mechanisms used - like the proportion of salary/squad costs to turnover; total losses in a defined period; etc. Every approach has flaws and will be studied intently and 'gamed' as much as possible - as we have done when trading players to and from a club for our mutual (financial) benefit.
• Though there has to be the potential for a club to invest to improve. In football, as in every other sector, this means a period of investment when expenditure will exceed revenue whilst the the capability of the business is being developed - in football terms - the squad and coaching staff are upgraded and it take time to deliver improved results (recognising that investment does not guarantee success).
• What I think the various football regulators are not adequately taking account of is the financial health of each club as it embarks on a period of investment. This plus the ages old issue of the general rules of solvency and being a 'going concern' not applying to football clubs until suddenly they do and then the club in question collapses.
  To illustrate the point - as many here have commented - we are debt-free and we have owners that have huge financial resources. It's important to note they have the money to invest, not just access to the money to invest (i.e., someone one else's money). We should be capable of making great progress if not restricted by the rules in place.
  Contrast this this Man U or Chelsea who are laden with debt to the point that would sink other commercial enterprises, yet they can invest at a level far greater than us because the rules only consider what happens in a defined period - not what was the financial health of the club at the outset and now.

Ignoring the underlying 'health' of each club strikes me as the greatest flaw in the rules applied by the PL and UEFA. IMO it's tough to draw any conclusion other than it is done to protect the 'big clubs' by insulating them from challengers who have the resources to overtake them - whether done explicitly or otherwise it is corrupt. UTV.[/list]

[Beard82]

I think there are several fundamental considerations. My comments are about them rather than the detail and our precise position right now:

• Everyone recognises there needs to be some rules to prevent clubs going out of business whilst also providing some vague sense of being a 'level playing field' - views will differ on far the PL is from that.
• There are various mechanisms used - like the proportion of salary/squad costs to turnover; total losses in a defined period; etc. Every approach has flaws and will be studied intently and 'gamed' as much as possible - as we have done when trading players to and from a club for our mutual (financial) benefit.
• Though there has to be the potential for a club to invest to improve. In football, as in every other sector, this means a period of investment when expenditure will exceed revenue whilst the the capability of the business is being developed - in football terms - the squad and coaching staff are upgraded and it take time to deliver improved results (recognising that investment does not guarantee success).
• What I think the various football regulators are not adequately taking account of is the financial health of each club as it embarks on a period of investment. This plus the ages old issue of the general rules of solvency and being a 'going concern' not applying to football clubs until suddenly they do and then the club in question collapses.
  To illustrate the point - as many here have commented - we are debt-free and we have owners that have huge financial resources. It's important to note they have the money to invest, not just access to the money to invest (i.e., someone one else's money). We should be capable of making great progress if not restricted by the rules in place.
  Contrast this this Man U or Chelsea who are laden with debt to the point that would sink other commercial enterprises, yet they can invest at a level far greater than us because the rules only consider what happens in a defined period - not what was the financial health of the club at the outset and now.

Ignoring the underlying 'health' of each club strikes me as the greatest flaw in the rules applied by the PL and UEFA. IMO it's tough to draw any conclusion other than it is done to protect the 'big clubs' by insulating them from challengers who have the resources to overtake them - whether done explicitly or otherwise it is corrupt. UTV.[/list]

I broadly agree with all this.  I think its broader than the health - I think the mechanism for supporting clubs during times of rapid growth is just not probably thought through.  Business that grow rapdily are often not profitable in the short-term.   To force them to be, is not only stops there growth - it also undervalues all of there assets leading to them being sold below market value in an artifically depressed market.   Basically football clubs are being asked to run like businesses without the risks or rewards of it which is fundementally making the whole thing unviable.