FFP

[Crown Hill]

We backed City didn’t we when they first complained about this?

[Percy McCarthy]

We backed City didn’t we when they first complained about this?

I think we did, but I haven’t been able to see how it benefits us.

[Percy McCarthy]

Loads of Man City fans on Twitter, saying ‘it literally benefits most other clubs’ without any of them being able to say how. So I asked Grok, which came up with Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton and Brighton. So that’s good then.

[Dante Lavelli]

It is being reported by some that the massively inflated Etihad sponsorship is allowable income, is this a fair interpretation of the agreement? If so it somewhat opens the floodgates doesn't it?

My guess is the wording of the agreement is designed to stop the floodgates from opening, however any historic breaches will not be punished. Okay for man city as their status now justifies the biggest deals, not so good if you’re lower down the food chain but have wealthy owners…

[paul_e]

It is being reported by some that the massively inflated Etihad sponsorship is allowable income, is this a fair interpretation of the agreement? If so it somewhat opens the floodgates doesn't it?

My guess is the wording of the agreement is designed to stop the floodgates from opening, however any historic breaches will not be punished. Okay for man city as their status now justifies the biggest deals, not so good if you’re lower down the food chain but have wealthy owners…

There aren't historic breaches for this though, the appeal is against new rules that were created to stop it being done again going forward. I don't think there was ever any intention to make it a retrospective punishment though.

We backed City didn’t we when they first complained about this?

I think we did, but I haven’t been able to see how it benefits us.

If it had been removed/never created I reckon we'd have seen an company pop up to look after villa live/the warehouse which would've got funding from the owners directly on top of normal earnings and all of that would go on a sponsorship deal with the club. Make them responsible for everything around the ground you can justify as 'event management' to lower the costs as much as possible (probably only saves a pittance per season but it all helps). Adding somewhere around £40-50m to our revenue with something like that could've made the last couple of seasons much easier to manage.

[Dave]

So I asked Grok, which came up with Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton and Brighton.

It then added "and it's all the fault of the jews and diversity".

[paul_e]

So I asked Grok, which came up with Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton and Brighton.

It then added "and it's all the fault of the jews and diversity".

and called itself mecha-hitler again.

[SaddVillan]

Wasn't sure where to post this..  If it’s in the wrong place, then perhaps somebody can cut and paste it accordingly.

Here it is anyway:

Aston Villa Limited (00046572) has issued a confirmation statement on its Companies House filing history.

It says:

The company confirms that its intended future activities are lawful.

Me neither.

[Louzie0]

That’s the kind of thing that reads as, ‘Nothing to see here, honest guv’, if you’re into crime thrillers.

Not sure where the thrills would come from in an accounting context, but several H&Vers have assured me it’s where the action is, in the past, on here.

[Brazilian Villain]

Not sure where the thrills would come from in an accounting context, but several H&Vers have assured me it’s where the action is, in the past, on here.

It's always 'sexy time' when there's accountants around e.g. Companies House now requires companies to confirm their intended future activities are lawful on their annual confirmation statement, with this requirement applying to statements filed from March 5, 2024, onwards. This is part of new measures under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) that aim to improve data accuracy and tackle unlawful activities on the register.

[Sexual Ealing]

I am one interwar Birmingham Senior Cup statistic from overflowing here.

[Louzie0]

Good to know standards are still high on H&V!

Just a follow up question - if another outfit (i.e. definitely not The Villa) were to make such an assertion and then get caught in some nefarious dealings / dodgy adding up) what sort of sanctions would apply?

[simon ward 50]

Wasn't sure where to post this..  If it’s in the wrong place, then perhaps somebody can cut and paste it accordingly.

Here it is anyway:

Aston Villa Limited (00046572) has issued a confirmation statement on its Companies House filing history.

It says:

The company confirms that its intended future activities are lawful.

Me neither.

Company Law now demands this sort of statement!

[Somniloquism]

Good to know standards are still high on H&V!

Just a follow up question - if another outfit (i.e. definitely not The Villa) were to make such an assertion and then get caught in some nefarious dealings / dodgy adding up) what sort of sanctions would apply?

Lying to companies house so a stiff talking to.

[Louzie0]

Good to know standards are still high on H&V!

Just a follow up question - if another outfit (i.e. definitely not The Villa) were to make such an assertion and then get caught in some nefarious dealings / dodgy adding up) what sort of sanctions would apply?

Lying to companies house so a stiff talking to.

Nothing like GOT then, with the directors of the company walking naked down the street with someone ringing a bell and intoning ‘Shame!’.