Jump to content

FFP, Lerner and how it all works


Duck
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before this turns into a thread about getting Lerner out and how we all hate him etc, please leave all that outside...

After reading a bit about it yesterday and hearing the same spiel from fox and co over recent weeks, thought I'd put this out there.

from what I understand financial fair play basically says a club can't spend more than they make in merchandising and player sales (think it disregards tv money). It stops teams spending outside their means and taking on loads of debt. 

theres a constant stream of news from those in charge about increasing the clubs commercial weight. Bringing more money into the club via means other than tv money. 

Maybe someone with more insight can chip in and share more info about this but...

this would mean lerners hands are tied. He can't throw money at us this month, or in the summer or anytime

it won't matter who buys us because it'll be the same situation every window til FFP is relaxed or removed

the club need to increase their income drastically to compete.

I could be completely wrong, and putting myself in a bit of a position here, but i have s bit of sympathy for Lerner. I can see what he's trying to do, it's just not happening fast enough to save us. 

The only way he can truly throw money into the club transfers is to break the FFP rules. His hands are pretty tied I think. 

(*disclaimer- not to say that the rest of the organisation he's put in place is flawed. This is by no means an outright defends of our situation) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Financial fair play, kind of an oxymoron because if you have enough money you can buy your way out of the punishment for falling foul.

I'd like to hear a bit more on the FFP in the championship, from what I gather - this could be a real problem for us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look at our wage and transfer spending we are around the middle of the table for amount spent. There are teams who spend far less than us on wages and transfers who are competing just fine.

While some will disagree, I'm not displeased with the amount we've spent, it's the players we spent the money on, that is the problem.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, New_Jersey_Villa said:

When you look at our wage and transfer spending we are around the middle of the table for amount spent. There are teams who spend far less than us on wages and transfers who are competing just fine.

While some will disagree, I'm not displeased with the amount we've spent, it's the players we spent the money on, that is the problem.

The point about Financial fair play isn't really around how well you do with what you spend, it's purely how much you've spent and how much you make...and how much more you're able to spend.  Clearly doing better will generate additional revenue and allow you to spend more, but my finger in the air guess is our wage bill compared to what we bring in probalby doesn't put our books in a good place for spending more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Neil said:

Financial fair play, kind of an oxymoron because if you have enough money you can buy your way out of the punishment for falling foul.

I'd like to hear a bit more on the FFP in the championship, from what I gather - this could be a real problem for us.

From what I saw yesterday I think the rules are largely the same for both the Premiership and the championship. The only difference is the parachute payments which I assume are counted as tv revenue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neil said:

The point about Financial fair play isn't really around how well you do with what you spend, it's purely how much you've spent and how much you make...and how much more you're able to spend.  Clearly doing better will generate additional revenue and allow you to spend more, but my finger in the air guess is our wage bill compared to what we bring in probalby doesn't put our books in a good place for spending more.

My point was more to the fact that it isn't the constraints of FFP that we're in this mess, it's the fact that the money we spent that was within the boundaries on the FFP was used poorly. The original poster had asked if FFP was preventing Lerner from throwing more money around, I'm just saying that, that shouldn't even be an issue if we had invested the money already spent more wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We received about £45m in transfer fees. We lost about £350k a week alone  in Benteke, Delph, Vlaar, Cleverley,Bent and Given. That's about £16m a year.

Then you add on Sylla, Tonev, Luna, Bennett, Baker, Weimann, Lowton.

Where has this money gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, New_Jersey_Villa said:

My point was more to the fact that it isn't the constraints of FFP that we're in this mess, it's the fact that the money we spent that was within the boundaries on the FFP was used poorly. The original poster had asked if FFP was preventing Lerner from throwing more money around, I'm just saying that, that shouldn't even be an issue if we had invested the money already spent more wisely.

Which is sidetracking the issue at hand, we're in a mess..we have a high wage bill on shite players...so how do we get out of it?  We need to look at re-investment, spending more wisely yes, but spending more money as defacto.

FFP may be stopping us from spending more money, period.  Which (what I believe) is more what the original poster is alluding too.

Edited by Neil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

We received about £45m in transfer fees. We lost about £350k a week alone  in Benteke, Delph, Vlaar, Cleverley,Bent and Given. That's about £16m a year.

Then you add on Sylla, Tonev, Luna, Bennett, Baker, Weimann, Lowton.

Where has this money gone?

I'd imagine to the wages for players we signed last summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just an excuse for not investing the required money into the club and then they mis-spend any money they do get. If Randy put £50m of his money into the club it could be done easily without being pusnished, look at QPR or Man City. 'Balancing the books' is just Lerner trying to make Villa be self sufficient and still be a premier league club so it would look attractive to potential investors. Nobody would want to buy the club if books say it takes a £25m a year loss just to keep us going. Unfortunately he has made a complete balls of it and the club's a mess and he'll lose even more money. In a perfect world you can have a club that's self sustaining and in midtable in the premier league. Randy lerner can't however because he's incompotent and hires other incompotent people to help him.

Edited by villa89
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, villa89 said:

It's just an excuse for not investing the required money into the club and then they mis-spend any money they do get. If Randy put £50m of his money into the club it could be done easily without being pusnished, look at QPR or Man City. 

Man City were up for being punished, but they bought there way out of that right?  Money given directly from the director to the company, even gifted, can't be included in the budget from what I recall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another thing, i really liked someone else's analogy the other day, FFP has ended the argument over being a traditionally big club, us, newcastle, sunderland, we'd measure our size based on our crowds and our fanbase, that was your revenue, that was your pulling power, means nothing anymore, you're only as big as the cheque you get off the name on the front of your shirt

the reality is leicester's owners sponsor the shirt, they sponsor the ground, they pump money in through sponsoring themselves, randy cant do that, he doesn town anything else to do it, all he has is his personal fortune and the rules say he cant do that, tbf he's never suggested he's got any intention of doing that, but we cant compete with them financially anymore, 10k extra seats and a more shirt sales mean absolutely nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

another thing, i really liked someone else's analogy the other day, FFP has ended the argument over being a traditionally big club, us, newcastle, sunderland, we'd measure our size based on our crowds and our fanbase, that was your revenue, that was your pulling power, means nothing anymore, you're only as big as the cheque you get off the name on the front of your shirt

the reality is leicester's owners sponsor the shirt, they sponsor the ground, they pump money in through sponsoring themselves, randy cant do that, he doesn town anything else to do it, all he has is his personal fortune and the rules say he cant do that, tbf he's never suggested he's got any intention of doing that, but we cant compete with them financially anymore, 10k extra seats and a more shirt sales mean absolutely nothing

Shame he doesn't still own a massive credit card firm huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

Man City were up for being punished, but they bought there way out of that right?  Money given directly from the director to the company, even gifted, can't be included in the budget from what I recall?

no it cant, city tried to sponsor the stadium and the amount got queried due to the precedent set by arsenal's emirates deal, so they sponsor the local school, the local metro station, the local bus stops to get round it, that massive complex they have is all sponsored

iirc they also got stopped from having a mega bucks sponsorship deal on the womens team, not sure what they do with overheads costed to new york

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
Â