FFP

[Chris Harte]

Not so much a free pass. Just felt the games I mentioned were more obvious draws that we could reasonably have expected to win.

[AV82EC]

Mostly cliche rather than analysis but not sure i can get too bothered about a remote comment piece about the Villa in the Guardian.

As for our PSR position I’m wary given so many presented such an optimistic view ahead of the summer which didn’t come to pass!

I’m wary too having been positive about PSR, and then being hit by UEFA’s SCR & FER. Difficult to post about specifics without up-to-date accounts and analysis, but the head winds are good. There are three pillars of revenue that always get mentioned - broadcast, matchday and commercial. Broadcast we’re okay and leads to us being firmly in that Deloitte Money League top 20. Matchday and commercial we’re behind but improving. But I’m massively optimistic about a fourth pillar of income that we do well in - player trading and academy sales. I’m convinced the current crop will either save or make us a fortune. We’re second only to Chelsea in recent years and I believe there’s serious talent among the present up-and-comers.

Just to add to Percy’s optimism, we’re on course to achieve our highest ever UEFA club ranking (5yr) if we do well in this years Europa League. Not in itself massively important but is crucial for UEFA value pillar payments. We’re currently 39th but could end up in the mid 20s if we go well.

[Dave]

I think the article is a poor piece of writing and misses the whole point of the frustration that teams like Newcastle and Villa have over FFP.

I'm sure they understand the frustration just fine, but a couple of teams being frustrated isn't a reason the rules are wrong. They're currently written in a way that doesn't help us, but I think there's a conflation of "what's bad for Villa at this particular moment" and "what's bad for football" are the same thing, and that's necessarily not the case.

I'd have loved it if in the summer we had gone and smashed another £150m on Wharton and Semenyo because we'd decided that the £75m we'd spent on Onana and Malen hadn't been used as well as it could have been. But I don't think anyone but Villa fans would have said that it was a good thing that we could do so.

Why would the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace want to add a couple more teams to the list that can just take their players away with a snap of their fingers? We don't want the rules to be fair, we just want the unfairness to be weighted a bit more in our favour than it already is.

And it definitely does need to be reworked so that it doesn't incentivise the selling of homegrown players, but the basic principle of "you can't spend hundreds of millions more than you're making" is sound and as it should be. Even if that is currently inconvenient for us.

[paul_e]

Mostly cliche rather than analysis but not sure i can get too bothered about a remote comment piece about the Villa in the Guardian.

As for our PSR position I’m wary given so many presented such an optimistic view ahead of the summer which didn’t come to pass!

I’m wary too having been positive about PSR, and then being hit by UEFA’s SCR & FER. Difficult to post about specifics without up-to-date accounts and analysis, but the head winds are good. There are three pillars of revenue that always get mentioned - broadcast, matchday and commercial. Broadcast we’re okay and leads to us being firmly in that Deloitte Money League top 20. Matchday and commercial we’re behind but improving. But I’m massively optimistic about a fourth pillar of income that we do well in - player trading and academy sales. I’m convinced the current crop will either save or make us a fortune. We’re second only to Chelsea in recent years and I believe there’s serious talent among the present up-and-comers.

Just to add to Percy’s optimism, we’re on course to achieve our highest ever UEFA club ranking (5yr) if we do well in this years Europa League. Not in itself massively important but is crucial for UEFA value pillar payments. We’re currently 39th but could end up in the mid 20s if we go well.

I'm a little more positive and think that our position is almost certainly better than it's being portrayed but I'm really interested to see the next set of accounts.

Doing well in Europe is definitely a big part of getting ourselves into a more stable situation.

[Somniloquism]

If we win or get to the final, I see us cracking the top 20. It needs us to win the majority of the matches though and not draw or lose specific ones even if we get through on a overall results. 

[Chris Smith]

Not so much a free pass. Just felt the games I mentioned were more obvious draws that we could reasonably have expected to win.

But I’m sure that all of our rivals would similarly point to games where they could have expected to do better. It often comes down to very fine margins. For instance in 2020 we stayed up by a single point, so that time we finished just in the right side of a close finish.

[Sexual Ealing]

I think the article is a poor piece of writing and misses the whole point of the frustration that teams like Newcastle and Villa have over FFP.

I'm sure they understand the frustration just fine, but a couple of teams being frustrated isn't a reason the rules are wrong. They're currently written in a way that doesn't help us, but I think there's a conflation of "what's bad for Villa at this particular moment" and "what's bad for football" are the same thing, and that's necessarily not the case.

I'd have loved it if in the summer we had gone and smashed another £150m on Wharton and Semenyo because we'd decided that the £75m we'd spent on Onana and Malen hadn't been used as well as it could have been. But I don't think anyone but Villa fans would have said that it was a good thing that we could do so.

Why would the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace want to add a couple more teams to the list that can just take their players away with a snap of their fingers? We don't want the rules to be fair, we just want the unfairness to be weighted a bit more in our favour than it already is.

And it definitely does need to be reworked so that it doesn't incentivise the selling of homegrown players, but the basic principle of "you can't spend hundreds of millions more than you're making" is sound and as it should be. Even if that is currently inconvenient for us.

Yes.

[paul_e]

I think the article is a poor piece of writing and misses the whole point of the frustration that teams like Newcastle and Villa have over FFP.

I'm sure they understand the frustration just fine, but a couple of teams being frustrated isn't a reason the rules are wrong. They're currently written in a way that doesn't help us, but I think there's a conflation of "what's bad for Villa at this particular moment" and "what's bad for football" are the same thing, and that's necessarily not the case.

I'd have loved it if in the summer we had gone and smashed another £150m on Wharton and Semenyo because we'd decided that the £75m we'd spent on Onana and Malen hadn't been used as well as it could have been. But I don't think anyone but Villa fans would have said that it was a good thing that we could do so.

Why would the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace want to add a couple more teams to the list that can just take their players away with a snap of their fingers? We don't want the rules to be fair, we just want the unfairness to be weighted a bit more in our favour than it already is.

And it definitely does need to be reworked so that it doesn't incentivise the selling of homegrown players, but the basic principle of "you can't spend hundreds of millions more than you're making" is sound and as it should be. Even if that is currently inconvenient for us.

Yes.

For me there are a few problems that need to be addressed.

1. Academy farms, this definitely needs to be looked at but it can't be a solution that punishes teams that have built themselves around developing players.
2. Debt needs to be accounted for.
3. The current caps, in many cases, serve as a suggested amount of spending rather than a limit, us, fulham, forest and this year Sunderland have all treated them this way and been more successful than clubs who have been more measured after promotion.
4. Better support for unexpected success. We got in the shit with UEFA largely because a change of manager saw us go from 17th in the table to european qualification in the space of 8months and that success came quicker than our commercial operation could track with and with a squad that wasn't really setup for the extra games that come as a result.

[cdbearsfan]

The current rules are absolute bollocks and clearly only designed to protect the status quo (don't even think about it). No idea why anyone would be rushing to defend them. It's like hearing Boris Johnson talking and assuming he is acting altruistically, you'd have to be gullible as fuck.

[Sexual Ealing]

The current rules are absolute bollocks and clearly only designed to protect the status quo (don't even think about it). No idea why anyone would be rushing to defend them. It's like hearing Boris Johnson talking and assuming he is acting altruistically, you'd have to be gullible as fuck.

I'm sure you'd feel just as strongly if Villa were  11th in League One.

[cdbearsfan]

I have been consistently against the FFP rules even when we were in the Championship so yes, I would. No need for the gaslighting, thanks.

[Sexual Ealing]

It's gaslamping mate.

[cdbearsfan]

Not any more, we have had to sell the gaslamps to Man U. ☹️

[Beard82]

I think the article is a poor piece of writing and misses the whole point of the frustration that teams like Newcastle and Villa have over FFP.

I'm sure they understand the frustration just fine, but a couple of teams being frustrated isn't a reason the rules are wrong. They're currently written in a way that doesn't help us, but I think there's a conflation of "what's bad for Villa at this particular moment" and "what's bad for football" are the same thing, and that's necessarily not the case.

I'd have loved it if in the summer we had gone and smashed another £150m on Wharton and Semenyo because we'd decided that the £75m we'd spent on Onana and Malen hadn't been used as well as it could have been. But I don't think anyone but Villa fans would have said that it was a good thing that we could do so.

Why would the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace want to add a couple more teams to the list that can just take their players away with a snap of their fingers? We don't want the rules to be fair, we just want the unfairness to be weighted a bit more in our favour than it already is.

And it definitely does need to be reworked so that it doesn't incentivise the selling of homegrown players, but the basic principle of "you can't spend hundreds of millions more than you're making" is sound and as it should be. Even if that is currently inconvenient for us.

Yes.

I dont agree - its just what-aboutism in the article.  Villa fans are justified to be frustrated at the rules - and the fact we havent done everything perfect doesnt invalidate our frusttation. 

I undersrand it is something we have to live with.  As fans and a club we can be frustrated that it looks like were never going to be in the "special club" of top teams because we weren't there when the music stopped.  The fact that other clubs are happy not being part of that group is up to them.   

Personally, I think Villa and Newcastle are just demonstrating another example (in the long line) of why the rules arent fit for purpose.  You cant make the jump without significant ongoing investment and that isnt allowed.  Just like you say the homegrown player thing is another. 

Other examples include:
Current top 6 have (something like) 2bn in debt (which is risky to the clubs),  However they can continue to spend big - meaning clubs like Newcastle and Villa have to spend more to compete which they cant
Allegedy the rules dont apply to Man City
Spurs and Man Utd place in the top 6 basically ringfenced because they are completely isolated from failure depsite poor management and decision making

Its a format that overally rewards yesterdays success without any real worries about the future. 

We do need FFP rules - but not the current ones

[LeeB]

Wilson is a condescending prick, regardless of any relevent points he made.

If he took the same attitude with the likes of Guardiola, Arteta or the talking thumb at Liverpool I might listen, but it's endless think pieces about their various struggles and not one (that I can remember) that goes along the lines of "You've spent £250m on new players whilst potential competitors have their hands tied, shut up and get on with it"