collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Victor Lindelöf - done by Drummond
[Today at 09:32:51 PM]


The International Cricket Thread by PaulWinch again
[Today at 09:31:46 PM]


Other Games 2025-26 by cdbearsfan
[Today at 09:29:47 PM]


Harvey Elliott (signed on loan) by eamonn
[Today at 09:25:20 PM]


Jadon Sancho (confirmed loan signing) by eamonn
[Today at 09:20:59 PM]


Fletcher Boyd by Sexual Ealing
[Today at 09:19:14 PM]


Europa League 2025-26 by LeeS
[Today at 09:14:25 PM]


FFP by Villa in Denmark
[Today at 08:14:04 PM]

Recent Posts

Re: Victor Lindelöf - done by Drummond
[Today at 09:32:51 PM]


Re: The International Cricket Thread by PaulWinch again
[Today at 09:31:46 PM]


Re: Other Games 2025-26 by cdbearsfan
[Today at 09:29:47 PM]


Re: Other Games 2025-26 by cdbearsfan
[Today at 09:29:03 PM]


Re: Other Games 2025-26 by JUAN PABLO
[Today at 09:28:36 PM]


Re: Victor Lindelöf - done by Monty
[Today at 09:25:42 PM]


Re: Harvey Elliott (signed on loan) by eamonn
[Today at 09:25:20 PM]


Re: Other Games 2025-26 by cdbearsfan
[Today at 09:22:33 PM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: FFP  (Read 541727 times)

Offline Mister E

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18276
  • Location: Mostly the Republic of Yorkshire (N)
  • GM : 16.02.2026
Re: FFP
« Reply #5625 on: Today at 08:49:41 AM »
How about one like Anfield, but with better transport links? Or an academy that generates more money than every other PL academy bar Chelsea’s? Or a manager like Emery? Or the richest non-state owners in the world? Or getting more players like Tielemans, Kamara, Rogers, McGinn and Konsa for next to fuck all? Or having higher revenue than the vast majority of clubs in England and Europe? Won’t stuff like that allow us to compete?
Only we competed with them alright the last three seasons.
For scr purposes nothing in that bold bit matters. It's even worse than ffp in that it only cares about commercial performance, sporting success is only relevant for the prize money and potential for better sponsorship.
Yep. UEFA would argue that it is there to prevent clubs 'buying' their success by bringing in high wage-earners, ignoring the point that for clubs with low commercial potential the SCR is a brake on success. It's a very blunt instrument as far as measuring or underpinning the sustainability of the enterprise is concerned (because it has no link to the underlying wealth of the club and its owners) and clearly favours clubs with an already-high revenue-base (hence the drawbridge analogy often used).

Offline garyellis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1445
Re: FFP
« Reply #5626 on: Today at 09:02:18 AM »
We all know how the club have milked match day income over the last couple of years.
Only when the price had sufficiently moved up have the plans to grow capacity being put in place.
We have seen positive developments on the commercial revenue front and there is much more to do.
I would assume there would be a similar strategy and pecking order to how we develop this area as opposed to will you sponsor our dirty laundry for a few quid.
We seemed to “win” the fight with FFP but our owners and execs must have seen SCR coming and have a plan for the future.

Online Stu82

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 883
  • Location: In the sticks
  • GM : 30.09.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #5627 on: Today at 10:00:19 AM »
The money does have to be paid, and in most cases the payments are spread over several years. But for the point of FFP working out, only 3/4 of the fee will appear at most at any one time and others are then dropping off, but the whole of the sold home-grown is on for the three years. So previously Elanga, McTominay, Greenwood, Henderson and the lower priced but multiple numbers of lower placed players all helped them waste the money the last few years.

But as SCR seems to be the new thing, it doesn't surprise me that all the clubs with the most revenues are spending all the money this year.

Yep, it’s all about revenue. I wonder how long before NSWE realise that only a Spurs style stadium will allow us to compete.

How about one like Anfield, but with better transport links? Or an academy that generates more money than every other PL academy bar Chelsea’s? Or a manager like Emery? Or the richest non-state owners in the world? Or getting more players like Tielemans, Kamara, Rogers, McGinn and Konsa for next to fuck all? Or having higher revenue than the vast majority of clubs in England and Europe? Won’t stuff like that allow us to compete?

Only we competed with them alright the last three seasons.

Great post Percy.
There are loads of issues that face Villa re compliance, however all this pain from uefa has been on a turnover of £270m, this year according to Heck our turnover will be £360/370m. I believe that this year was the tough one, as long as the team produce on the pitch we will be able to continue to grow and close the gap on the sky six.
I believe that NSWE have a plan.

Offline Percy McCarthy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35817
  • Location: I'm hiding in my hole
    • King City Online
Re: FFP
« Reply #5628 on: Today at 06:18:38 PM »
Saw this on X if you like this kind of thing:

This is the layman’s terms easy to understand UEFA settlement that the club agreed to, YOU'RE WELCOME VILLA FANS!

Breaking Down Aston Villa's (#avfc) UEFA Settlement Agreement: What It Means for the clubs fans:

UEFA has hit the club with a financial settlement for overspending, and I’ve updated the breakdown with a new document (dated 2025, pages 1-4 shown). It’s similar to deals other clubs like Chelsea or Milan faced.

1. Why Did This Happen? (Background)

-Villa didn’t follow UEFA’s financial stability rules (Articles 85-92 of the 2024 regs) because our "Football Earnings" (profit after football costs) were too far in the red in 2023 and 2024.

-UEFA noticed issues with player swap deals (trading players to balance books), which they adjusted.
Proceedings started in Sept 2024, and we agreed to a 3-year settlement on June 27, 2025, to avoid harsher penalties.

2. How Long Does This Last? (Duration)

-Covers financial reports for 2025, 2026, 2027 and seasons 2025/26, 2026/27, 2027/28.

-The club can exit early if THEY hit targets

3. What Do We Have to Hit? (Targets)

-2025/26 Season: Max loss of €5 million by 2026 report ("2025 Target"). Owners can add up to €60m to cover more if needed.

-2026/27 Season: Break even – €0 loss by 2027 report ("2026 Target"). If we do better in 2025, we can carry some leeway (total losses over 2025-2026 can’t exceed €60m).

-2027/28 Season (Final Target): Profit or a small deficit within UEFA’s allowed limit across 2025-2027.

4. Promises We Made (Covenants & Obligations)

-Follow UEFA licensing rules (Article 18.01).

-Prove we’re not going bust with clean audit reports.

-Submit honest financials and transfer details every 6 months.

-Cooperate fully with UEFA checks and report big changes fast.

5. The Fines (Financial Penalties)

-Total possible fine: €20 million.€5 million upfront, no excuses.

-Up to €15 million extra if we miss targets by €20m or less:

**€5m if we miss 2025 Target.

**€5m if we miss 2026 Target.

**€5m if we miss Final Target.

Miss by less than €20m? Fine is scaled down. Dodgy accounts? Fines double.

6. Transfer Restrictions (Sporting Penalties)

-Can’t add new players to UEFA "List A" unless our "Transfer Balance" (savings from outgoing players minus costs of new ones) is positive.

Applies:

Definitely in 2025/26.

Maybe in 2026/27 if we lose money in 2025; 2027/28 if we miss 2026 Target; 2028/29 if we slightly miss Final Target.

Miss a target by €10-20m? New signings can only cost 50% of savings from sales.

Only affects UEFA squads, NOT Premier League.

7. How Do We Get Out? (Compliance)

-Ends when UEFA confirms we’re back to their earnings rule (latest 2027/28).

-Hit Final Target? Club is free from settlement.

-Balance books over 2024-2026? Early exit from 2027/28, no restrictions.

8. What If We Mess Up? (Non-Compliance)

-Miss Final Target by under €20m? Pay fines and face restrictions.

-Miss by over €20m or break promises? Deal ends, and the club is banned from the next UEFA comp you qualify for (up to 3 seasons).

Bottom Line

UEFA’s tightening the purse strings to keep football "sustainable." the big spending (top 4, Europe!) triggered this, but owners can help with cash, and smart sales will keep the club going. It’s tough but manageable – clubs like Villa can easily recover. Hit the targets, and you're stronger long-term.

Offline Percy McCarthy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35817
  • Location: I'm hiding in my hole
    • King City Online
Re: FFP
« Reply #5629 on: Today at 06:19:31 PM »

Offline PeterWithe

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10908
  • Location: Birmingham.
  • GM : 05.03.2026
Re: FFP
« Reply #5630 on: Today at 06:26:11 PM »
Would we have complied with UEFA's rules if they had accepted our transfer value swaps? ie Kellyman, TimI, Doug etc?

Offline Percy McCarthy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35817
  • Location: I'm hiding in my hole
    • King City Online
Re: FFP
« Reply #5631 on: Today at 06:30:01 PM »
^^ It’s gone beyond me now, especially with all the differing accounting periods. No doubt it would have been a positive were they allowed to be counted.

Online AV82EC

  • Member
  • Posts: 12434
  • Location: Macclesfield
  • GM : 22.02.2024
Re: FFP
« Reply #5632 on: Today at 06:36:40 PM »
I think you're right Percy, we'd have been in a better position, we may still have failed the UEFA rules but not by as much.

Online Lsvilla

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2057
  • GM : 13.08.2026
Re: FFP
« Reply #5633 on: Today at 06:48:47 PM »
I find it a bit duplicitous that they can rule on some of our transfers with other clubs and arbitrarily decide to exclude them from trading / profit calculations, yet seemingly allow Chelsea and Strasbourg to move assets laround at will and have Forest repeatedly buying from Botafogo without raising flags. I am sure those of you that study this closer than I will have numerous other examples.

Offline PeterWithe

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10908
  • Location: Birmingham.
  • GM : 05.03.2026
Re: FFP
« Reply #5634 on: Today at 06:51:00 PM »
I think they have pulled Chelsea about the values of the Maatsen/Kellyman deal.

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55551
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2026
Re: FFP
« Reply #5635 on: Today at 07:23:53 PM »
Yeah Chelsea are in the firing line and I suspect Forest will be.

Offline Percy McCarthy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35817
  • Location: I'm hiding in my hole
    • King City Online
Re: FFP
« Reply #5636 on: Today at 07:55:56 PM »
The money does have to be paid, and in most cases the payments are spread over several years. But for the point of FFP working out, only 3/4 of the fee will appear at most at any one time and others are then dropping off, but the whole of the sold home-grown is on for the three years. So previously Elanga, McTominay, Greenwood, Henderson and the lower priced but multiple numbers of lower placed players all helped them waste the money the last few years.

But as SCR seems to be the new thing, it doesn't surprise me that all the clubs with the most revenues are spending all the money this year.

Yep, it’s all about revenue. I wonder how long before NSWE realise that only a Spurs style stadium will allow us to compete.

How about one like Anfield, but with better transport links? Or an academy that generates more money than every other PL academy bar Chelsea’s? Or a manager like Emery? Or the richest non-state owners in the world? Or getting more players like Tielemans, Kamara, Rogers, McGinn and Konsa for next to fuck all? Or having higher revenue than the vast majority of clubs in England and Europe? Won’t stuff like that allow us to compete?

Only we competed with them alright the last three seasons.

For scr purposes nothing in that bold bit matters. It's even worse than ffp in that it only cares about commercial performance, sporting success is only relevant for the prize money and potential for better sponsorship.

Indeed. Which highlights the need to claim as much as possible of the revenue brought into the vicinity of the stadium as our own.

The summer concerts and the Warehouse development are hugely important, not only for the immediate uplift in spend per supporter, but also what it signals for future initiatives and facilities on non-match days.

The growth in women’s football too, which gives us another 11 match days. Modest though the attendances currently are, they give us access to a different demographic.

Do you know UEFA’s rules on Associated Party Sponsorships? Do they accept fair market value like the PL? That could be another way for the owners to get revenue onto the books.

« Last Edit: Today at 08:19:48 PM by Percy McCarthy »

Offline Tuscans

  • Member
  • Posts: 8513
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Newport, South Wales
  • GM : 08.02.15
Re: FFP
« Reply #5637 on: Today at 08:11:53 PM »
Not really FFP but thought I would put plonk it here to see where we rank.

During the Daniel Levy era Spurs were the most profitable Premier League Club.


Offline Villa in Denmark

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12858
  • Age: 1025
  • Location: Lost
  • On a road to nowhere
  • GM : 25.09.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #5638 on: Today at 08:14:04 PM »
More scary is our losses. The amount of money we pissed away on mediocrity and then worse.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal