Neil Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: 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 I think their biggest sponsor was the etihad airways thing that gave them loads of money, which I think they own too right? And it was £43million fine for City as they did breach FFP somewhere. So I suppose, if you've got truck loads of money you could just spend **** loads and then argue for the same £43million fine and pay that off. Randy won't be doing any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) In relation to Citeh the New York, Melbourne, Japanese & women's franchises actually pay Citeh money for the rights to be associated with them even though they are owned by them. Another FFP farce. Quote http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/16/manchester-city-fine-transfer-cap-uefa-ffp......deals that raised £47m from image rights and intellectual property in 2012-13. Though that loophole has now been changed. I believe the Swiss Rambler website has a full in-depth breakdown of the deals. Edited January 5, 2016 by thabucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 36 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. '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. 100% the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I do not think FFP stopped us spending more money in the last window or in previous ones or will stop us spending a significant amount of money in this one. I think our "custodian" did and will do so again. FFP is one of the things he hides behind as our football club burns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 FFP = losses - income = what we can spend. Look at the accounts for the past 3 seasons. They make dire reading, we can't spend what we don't have due to our accumulated losses over the monitoring period. He isn't hiding behind it its fact. Blame game is a seperste argument 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 If Randy put £50m of his money into the club it could be done easily without being pusnished i dont disagree but i think you're missing the point, FFP has effectively rigged football towards those who play CL and have huge sponsorship deals and he wants nothing to do with it, i dont think he's hiding behind FFP and withdrawn his money, i think he's hiding from making a statement because he always has done, i think one of his biggest problems is that when he withdrew his interest because of FFP he should have come out and attacked it publicly, he should have attacked it before the vote and after the vote, instead he sat in silence and withdrew and its made him look like a dick spunking £200m on a team in 3/4 years because he wanted to and then spending next to **** all on it for the next 5 because he finally has an excuse not to anymore doesnt wash with me something flipped the switch and i believe it to be the rule change 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TrinityRoadSteps Posted January 5, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted January 5, 2016 One thing to come out of this in my opinion. Football is well and truly gone 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 No club can get any bigger than their turnover. As someone pointed out elsewhere, there is a substantial correlation between wages and success: therefore FFS created a football caste system which shackled all clubs in the position they were when the regulations came into force. This amounts to protectionism of the big clubs and by excluding competition ensures the big clubs never risk losing their advantage and access to the Champions League income which buttresses them against competing clubs. What has to be understood is that those clubs who defied the regulations suffered very few sanctions, as we all knew they would, and that they spend their time lobbying UEFA to allow them to classify income in categories which don't contravene the regulations and knowing what we know about UEFA, we can't be confident that money does not change hands. It is a factor, amongst many, in Lerner's slow destruction of Villa but not the most crucial. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 3 hours ago, rodders0223 said: Where has this money gone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: something flipped the switch and i believe it to be the rule change It had nothing to do with the rule change. He realised that villa was costing him a fortune and he wasn't rich enough to sustain it. He also got divorced, sold his NFL team and mismanaged his money. That's why he stopped spending and wants to sell the club, it's nothing to do with FFP. He might also have discovered that his interest in football was just a passing fancy and owning a club wasn't the nice hobby he thought it would be. It was a job he wasn't qualified for. Quote 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 own anything else to do it, all he has is his personal fortune and the rules say he cant do that, He can create a business if he wants to sponsor the shirt. He can create a designer clothing company and manufacture our shirts if he feels like it. He can rename Villa Park to the Randy Lerner Thunderdome of Depression if he wants. There a numerous ways to circumvent the FFP rules if you want to. Also the FA and UEFA both know that the FFP rules aren't legal under european law and as far I am aware a club in Belgium (backed by Man City and PSG) are challenging them in court at the moment. This this why UEFA "relaxed" the rules and clubs like Man City still go out and spend £110m on de Bruyne and Sterling. FFP is a myth, a non-issue. Edited January 5, 2016 by villa89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, John said: I do not think FFP stopped us spending more money in the last window or in previous ones or will stop us spending a significant amount of money in this one. I think our "custodian" did and will do so again. FFP is one of the things he hides behind as our football club burns. Out of interest, where has Lerner been quoted as saying FFP is the reason he hasn't spent more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 11 minutes ago, bobzy said: Out of interest, where has Lerner been quoted as saying FFP is the reason he hasn't spent more? I don't think Lerner has cited FFP but what he has said is that the club has to live within its means and work as a going concern eg. reduce wages/increase turnover. It is clear that he has neither the means nor the inclination to dump money in to the club in the manner of Man City and Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, Eames said: I don't think Lerner has cited FFP but what he has said is that the club has to live within its means and work as a going concern eg. reduce wages/increase turnover. It is clear that he has neither the means nor the inclination to dump money in to the club in the manner of Man City and Chelsea. But there's nothing wrong with that - I think we'd all want the club to be sustainable within it's means. He spent a lot in the first couple of seasons and then scaled back heavily, which may have saved us (in a weird way). In any case, that's different to apparently hiding behind FFP so that he doesn't spend, which is what the OP suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 1 minute ago, bobzy said: But there's nothing wrong with that - I think we'd all want the club to be sustainable within it's means. He spent a lot in the first couple of seasons and then scaled back heavily, which may have saved us (in a weird way). In any case, that's different to apparently hiding behind FFP so that he doesn't spend, which is what the OP suggests. I'm absolutely not saying there is. Its why the club will not "do a Leeds" because we aren't up to our ears in debt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 5, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: FFS created a football caste system which shackled all clubs in the position they were when the regulations came into force. It didn't shackle Villa, though, did it? If it did, we'd be comfortably mid table. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 17 minutes ago, blandy said: It didn't shackle Villa, though, did it? If it did, we'd be comfortably mid table. Also, a quick glance at the top 6 of the premier league on 5 Jan 2016 should wipe out any simple notion that FFP made it impossible for clubs to challenge the existing rankings. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Talk of FFP as a way of sympathising with Lerner is ridiculous IMO. Look at the likes of Leicester, stoke, palace, Southampton and Watford. We've allowed so many teams to over take us in so many areas on and off the pitch and all clubs have to deal with FFP. It shouldn't make us one of the worst teams in the history of the league. Didn't Tom Fox recently say that our commercial revenue increase during the time Lerner has owned us has been very low? FFP has been here for a while and we seem to be one of the only clubs who can't do anything within the rules. I don't feel any sympathy towards someone who is incapable of doing their job properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I think if we are to assess the influence of financial regulation on the Premier League finishing-position you can't really take this season as an example, and certainly not in January. The regulations were agreed to in 2009 and clubs began to take steps to get their books in order from that date to comply by season 2011-12. 2009-10 season was the last season Villa finished 6th. In the seasons which followed agreement with the FFP regulations no middle-earning club has finished in the top three and only Everton and Newcastle of the middle-earning clubs have finished in the top six. Both of those clubs had greater turnovers than Villa. Spurs were the only club to finish in the top six for all of those seasons and they have a turnover £70m greater than Villa's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Financial fair play or not, Lerner was taking his ball and going home. I hope the word removed goes bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyvilla Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Financial fair play or not, Lerner was taking his ball and going home. I hope the word removed goes bankrupt. Have you thought of the implications to villa should that happen? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts