Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Morley_crosses_to_Withe

Villa and FFP (2017/8/9)

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

Are you trying to make it sound more fancy than it is? I imagine you saying it in a posh Hyacinth Bucket voice.

 

(It’s ‘Premier’ ?)

We’re just acclimatising for the arrival of Thierry. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Any sponsorship deals have to be at market value. 

Thanks for clearing that up @DaveAV1, really thought we were on to something there ?

 

You know what, that's even a load of bollox isn't it.  Markets fluctuate and go up and down.  Markets get disrupted.  Who decides what the market is? There is only one single thing which decides what the market value for something is and that is the market. 

Therefore if someone decides to pay £x amount to sponsor a stadium, that is the market price. 

Otherwise whatever the first ever deal was to sponsor a stadium, that would be the only price anyone could pay, ever.  Perhaps allowing uplift for inflation. 

It's a ridiculous concept.  If whoever is in charge of FFP decides what you are "allowed" to charge for naming rights it's not a market price at all. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, sidcow said:

@DaveAV1 

Who decides what the market is? 

Therefore if someone decides to pay £x amount to sponsor a stadium, that is the market price. 

This is exactly the point. 

I think behind the scenes it depends how much you can spend on lawyers to argue your sponsorship case is ligit. 

If our new owners have the will.. They sponsor villa park for £400m and prepare a legal case to fight for the validity of it. 

It can be done. 

We shall see just how much is going to be set aside for the 'project'. 

It won't be easy for sure, but if we can attract the £100m to sponsor the holte end urinals who is to say that isn't market rate? Nobody has done it before so we are the precedent.. 

Interesting legal argument. 

Is such a grey area there must be some wiggle room for some clever lawyers. 

Im convinced as others are that these new owners wouldn't have invested in the club if they weren't pretty damn confident they could work with the ffp rules.. One way or another

 

Edited by richp999
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 mill a championship season. Were they come up with the number.  15 mill to Villa is nothing compared to what it would be to the likes of Burton. 

Its to keep teams away from top 6 and keep Prem league brand top around world 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, richp999 said:

It won't be easy for sure, but if we can attract the £100m to sponsor the holte end urinals who is to say that isn't market rate? 

The EFL. And then they give us a fine.

It would be obvious that the urinals sponsorship would not be worth £100m, but a way of getting around FFP.

But otherwise I agree with you, the FFP rules seems to be sweet music to creative lawyers and owners. And the fines don't seem to be very hefty nevertheless. 

Personally I'd be more for not trying to dodge the rules too much but try to be on a good foot with the EFL and try to do what's right. I would be ok with adding a sponsor name to Villa Park for a couple of years, some loan-to-buy/buy-back-deals, sell some of the players (except Jack and the kids) have a dialouge with the EFL regarding the situation and the rules, and then see what they say about the numbers in red come next march/may.

(And if all that fails, perhaps Xia can give EFL a motivational speech, or they can be invited to sit next to him on a matchday/get free ticets to the theme park)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt Lerner and Faulkner one of main supporters of FFP? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Wasnt Lerner and Faulkner one of main supporters of FFP? 

I might be wrong but I think they actually voted AGAINST 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blandy said:
  • The assessment of each club’s finances is a combination of a historic assessment (looking at figures for the two previous completed season) and an assessment over the season currently taking place

The last point is particularly significant; in addition to historic account information about past seasons, clubs now have to submit a financial projection for the season that is still taking place. All the information has to be with the Football League by the 1 March. The Football League have confirmed that they are aiming to have any punishments announced before the end of the season.....

So if what if the 'financial projection' for the current season that we have to submit in March 'accidentally' misses a few line items here and there? 

By the time the real accounts are published if we're a few months into the PL season what are they going to do? Suddenly relegate us and promote the team that finished below us? Who would you promote if there'd been a play off?

Lets just fudge this 'projection' and go out and buy EVERYONE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

I might be wrong but I think they actually voted AGAINST 

Ok i know we were one of only 3 or 4 clubs that was on one side

I just assumed the bad side ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Ok i know we were one of only 3 or 4 clubs that was on one side

I just assumed the bad side ?

We were against the FFP. I think we were one of 6 clubs, and if Im not mistaken one of them was, dare to say it, Fulham. 

When you think of what theyve done, you really have to admire them. We came and bought there best player, theyve paid nothing, yet build a team which everyone feared. I thought they were done down there when we took Ross, turned out we were the ones to laugh at.

gladly we got away with it this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rob182 said:

Are you trying to make it sound more fancy than it is? I imagine you saying it in a posh Hyacinth Bucket voice.

 

(It’s ‘Premier’ ?)

No, it's pedant. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

Thanks for clearing that up @DaveAV1, really thought we were on to something there ?

 

You know what, that's even a load of bollox isn't it.  Markets fluctuate and go up and down.  Markets get disrupted.  Who decides what the market is? There is only one single thing which decides what the market value for something is and that is the market. 

Therefore if someone decides to pay £x amount to sponsor a stadium, that is the market price. 

Otherwise whatever the first ever deal was to sponsor a stadium, that would be the only price anyone could pay, ever.  Perhaps allowing uplift for inflation. 

It's a ridiculous concept.  If whoever is in charge of FFP decides what you are "allowed" to charge for naming rights it's not a market price at all. 

 

5 hours ago, richp999 said:

This is exactly the point. 

I think behind the scenes it depends how much you can spend on lawyers to argue your sponsorship case is ligit. 

If our new owners have the will.. They sponsor villa park for £400m and prepare a legal case to fight for the validity of it. 

It can be done. 

We shall see just how much is going to be set aside for the 'project'. 

It won't be easy for sure, but if we can attract the £100m to sponsor the holte end urinals who is to say that isn't market rate? Nobody has done it before so we are the precedent.. 

Interesting legal argument. 

Is such a grey area there must be some wiggle room for some clever lawyers. 

Im convinced as others are that these new owners wouldn't have invested in the club if they weren't pretty damn confident they could work with the ffp rules.. One way or another

 

I'm quoting both of these posts as they are both germane to my thinking on where we are and where we are going.

I have a prediction, which doubtless will attract naysayers on the one hand countering it can't be true and is illegal and then there will be some others who may believe it but will be uncomfortable about the morality of it, but here it is anyway.

I don't think Sawiris and Edens will allow themselves to be constrained by FFP. I think they know that FFP is for the little people and the dilettantes, not serious players, and these guys are serious players with huge clout and leverage. They will also be business wolverines and they haven't come here to be told, by a bunch of jumped-up administrators, that they have to sell their new business's most prized assets, serve a penance as struggling paupers with a weakened team and then, maybe, a few years down the line, will start to see a some success.

People of their magnitude don't operate like that. To borrow a phrase, we aren't in danger, they are the danger.

I think there is huge scope for tasty lawyers to have a crack at FFP for any owners willing to fund the fight and to escalate the case through the required levels of courts of law and courts of arbitration, both nationally and internationally and that's a big lever.

Let's understand what the application of FFP is predicated on. It's, "You have failed to succeed and have spent money in the course of attempting to succeed - like every business that has ever existed. However, we are going to apply punitive action against you for attempting to succeed that will ensure it is impossible for you to succeed in the short to medium term because we are going to take even more money off you and impose anti-competitive restrictions on you." 

Which is something so ridiculous and inequitable that just on that point alone that there is a rich seam of points of law, natural justice and equity arguments and defences the lawyers can go at.

But that won't happen because I think our new owners are, unlike that trust fund schmuck Lerner and the risibly clueless Xia, the self-made real billionaire steel fists in the silk glove. And this is where some may squirm and baulk and say - like Lerner would - "No, we'll stick to the rules and be all sporting. That's the Villa way". However, I think they will "negotiate" with those that may wish to apply a penalty against us. And it will be a bilateral conversation. Also known as the carrot and stick negotiation, if you like. Or, the "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours'".

There will be the, "Yes, we understand how the rules affect us and they are designed to stop clubs going out of business. What fine rules you fine gentlemen have put in place to stop rogues ruining clubs, you are so clever, " conversation. There will also be a more subtle subtext which would translate as, "So, what can we do to make all this go away to everybody's mutual benefit? Lawyers are expensive, aren't they? Court cases can drag on for years, can't they? We don't really want to upset the apple cart and end your racket, we just want to be back where we belong by next year. Did you know I have a yacht and three private aircraft that I let my friends use to visit their money in foreign climes? So, about the fine we will pay, the transfer embargo that won't happen and the points we won't have deducted..."

I am entirely comfortable with whatever the new owners decide to do to crack the nut. FFP is a construct designed to protect a cartel, which was created by a corrupt bodies and continues to exist through the active maintenance of illegal practices by crooks. If they decide to offer an inducement to let the crooks continue their racket but let us through the gate, so be it.

However, If they decide this is the approach, I'll be beyond delighted.

giphy.gif

Edited by privateer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolves fans seem to think they are going to pay the 18m release clause in Adama Traore’s contract,

Dont we have a 20% sell on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dotcomsimon said:

Wolves fans seem to think they are going to pay the 18m release clause in Adama Traore’s contract,

Dont we have a 20% sell on?

Xia said when he left something about us benefiting from his future development. If Xia negotiated it its probably 1% mind. 

As an aside I hope this is true because Traore is crap and that's £18m of their budget blown ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zatman said:

Wasnt Lerner and Faulkner one of main supporters of FFP? 

No, we were one of the few who voted against it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Sam just said on Talksport that our new owners should not be held back by FFP and by past owners losses. I can't argue with him on that..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, privateer said:

 

I'm quoting both of these posts as they are both germane to my thinking on where we are and where we are going.

I have a prediction, which doubtless will attract naysayers on the one hand countering it can't be true and is illegal and then there will be some others who may believe it but will be uncomfortable about the morality of it, but here it is anyway.

I don't think Sawiris and Edens will allow themselves to be constrained by FFP. I think they know that FFP is for the little people and the dilettantes, not serious players, and these guys are serious players with huge clout and leverage. They will also be business wolverines and they haven't come here to be told, by a bunch of jumped-up administrators, that they have to sell their new business's most prized assets, serve a penance as struggling paupers with a weakened team and then, maybe, a few years down the line, will start to see a some success.

People of their magnitude don't operate like that. To borrow a phrase, we aren't in danger, they are the danger.

I think there is huge scope for tasty lawyers to have a crack at FFP for any owners willing to fund the fight and to escalate the case through the required levels of courts of law and courts of arbitration, both nationally and internationally and that's a big lever.

Let's understand what the application of FFP is predicated on. It's, "You have failed to succeed and have spent money in the course of attempting to succeed - like every business that has ever existed. However, we are going to apply punitive action against you for attempting to succeed that will ensure it is impossible for you to succeed in the short to medium term because we are going to take even more money off you and impose anti-competitive restrictions on you." 

Which is something so ridiculous and inequitable that just on that point alone that there is a rich seam of points of law, natural justice and equity arguments and defences the lawyers can go at.

But that won't happen because I think our new owners are, unlike that trust fund schmuck Lerner and the risibly clueless Xia, the self-made real billionaire steel fists in the silk glove. And this is where some may squirm and baulk and say - like Lerner would - "No, we'll stick to the rules and be all sporting. That's the Villa way". However, I think they will "negotiate" with those that may wish to apply a penalty against us. And it will be a bilateral conversation. Also known as the carrot and stick negotiation, if you like. Or, the "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours'".

There will be the, "Yes, we understand how the rules affect us and they are designed to stop clubs going out of business. What fine rules you fine gentlemen have put in place to stop rogues ruining clubs, you are so clever, " conversation. There will also be a more subtle subtext which would translate as, "So, what can we do to make all this go away to everybody's mutual benefit? Lawyers are expensive, aren't they? Court cases can drag on for years, can't they? We don't really want to upset the apple cart and end your racket, we just want to be back where we belong by next year. Did you know I have a yacht and three private aircraft that I let my friends use to visit their money in foreign climes? So, about the fine we will pay, the transfer embargo that won't happen and the points we won't have deducted..."

I am entirely comfortable with whatever the new owners decide to do to crack the nut. FFP is a construct designed to protect a cartel, which was created by a corrupt bodies and continues to exist through the active maintenance of illegal practices by crooks. If they decide to offer an inducement to let the crooks continue their racket but let us through the gate, so be it.

However, If they decide this is the approach, I'll be beyond delighted.

giphy.gif

Nice rendition....Have you just finished watching "Boardwalk Empire"

However, Whilst I know nothing about the mechanics of FFP......I find is frustratingly laborious....yet critical to our wellbeing.

I have no idea how long it hangs around for ( is it like yellow cards ,eventually gets written off) how do you get free of it, assuming no more revenue legitimately is likely to come in.

I understand that we have royally ****** up.....but are we to be locked in a dungeon and the key thrown away?

putting promotion and legitimate revenue to one side.....how do you get free of it, is there a time limit of punishment/restriction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, privateer said:

 

I'm quoting both of these posts as they are both germane to my thinking on where we are and where we are going.

I have a prediction, which doubtless will attract naysayers on the one hand countering it can't be true and is illegal and then there will be some others who may believe it but will be uncomfortable about the morality of it, but here it is anyway.

I don't think Sawiris and Edens will allow themselves to be constrained by FFP. I think they know that FFP is for the little people and the dilettantes, not serious players, and these guys are serious players with huge clout and leverage. They will also be business wolverines and they haven't come here to be told, by a bunch of jumped-up administrators, that they have to sell their new business's most prized assets, serve a penance as struggling paupers with a weakened team and then, maybe, a few years down the line, will start to see a some success.

People of their magnitude don't operate like that. To borrow a phrase, we aren't in danger, they are the danger.

I think there is huge scope for tasty lawyers to have a crack at FFP for any owners willing to fund the fight and to escalate the case through the required levels of courts of law and courts of arbitration, both nationally and internationally and that's a big lever.

Let's understand what the application of FFP is predicated on. It's, "You have failed to succeed and have spent money in the course of attempting to succeed - like every business that has ever existed. However, we are going to apply punitive action against you for attempting to succeed that will ensure it is impossible for you to succeed in the short to medium term because we are going to take even more money off you and impose anti-competitive restrictions on you." 

Which is something so ridiculous and inequitable that just on that point alone that there is a rich seam of points of law, natural justice and equity arguments and defences the lawyers can go at.

But that won't happen because I think our new owners are, unlike that trust fund schmuck Lerner and the risibly clueless Xia, the self-made real billionaire steel fists in the silk glove. And this is where some may squirm and baulk and say - like Lerner would - "No, we'll stick to the rules and be all sporting. That's the Villa way". However, I think they will "negotiate" with those that may wish to apply a penalty against us. And it will be a bilateral conversation. Also known as the carrot and stick negotiation, if you like. Or, the "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours'".

There will be the, "Yes, we understand how the rules affect us and they are designed to stop clubs going out of business. What fine rules you fine gentlemen have put in place to stop rogues ruining clubs, you are so clever, " conversation. There will also be a more subtle subtext which would translate as, "So, what can we do to make all this go away to everybody's mutual benefit? Lawyers are expensive, aren't they? Court cases can drag on for years, can't they? We don't really want to upset the apple cart and end your racket, we just want to be back where we belong by next year. Did you know I have a yacht and three private aircraft that I let my friends use to visit their money in foreign climes? So, about the fine we will pay, the transfer embargo that won't happen and the points we won't have deducted..."

I am entirely comfortable with whatever the new owners decide to do to crack the nut. FFP is a construct designed to protect a cartel, which was created by a corrupt bodies and continues to exist through the active maintenance of illegal practices by crooks. If they decide to offer an inducement to let the crooks continue their racket but let us through the gate, so be it.

However, If they decide this is the approach, I'll be beyond delighted.

giphy.gif

Lets not get carried away. These owners look better than Xia - but lets see them appoint a CEO first, because another way of looking at it - is that Xia is still the major shareholder with 45% - the other two own 27.5% each. Ive seen it suggested that the shares the new guys own attract a dividend, so their investment provides a return - IF thats true then these guys are effectively funding the club at a cost to Aston Villa. It might also that Xia has more power at the club than we though on Friday when this new broke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Xia said when he left something about us benefiting from his future development. If Xia negotiated it its probably 1% mind. 

As an aside I hope this is true because Traore is crap and that's £18m of their budget blown ?

Xia's probably already taken a loan out against it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â