Jump to content
Morley_crosses_to_Withe

Villa and FFP (2017/8/9)

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Who's this guy ☝️

The illegitimate love child between Steve Gibson and Lee Johnson is my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gibson really is a bitter little man. He was once hailed as one of the best football owner's around. He now comes over as someone who points the finger at other clubs simply because his own club are going down the pan. He's looking for a reason for that which is not too close to home to make it uncomfortable for him. He has not been shy to spend money in the past and has been forced to sell players following relegation as we were, but took a bit longer to do so. No doubt a few other smaller clubs will like the idea of having a pot at us as well. Sooner we get up the better.    

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We pointed fingers at wolves and I still think there’s something going to come from that. Think this criticism is probably borne from our near disaster and not having to now sell grealish. Probably just needs a FFP expert to explain over lunch. Purslow would probs rather not dine with the absolute ferret though. 

Share this post


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

After Saturday I don’t think you should be too high and mighty about penalties and offsides!

If you care to watch the video from behind the goal that's on this site.....It was clear as daylight a push to the ground on Hourihane....I was unsure at the match due to the angle.....but it's crystal clear.

As for the Weimann goal.....He was offside.

However, we had enough chances with our depleted team to have won 2 matches.....so justice was done.

There is also a claim that our offside ( Tammy Abraham)was indeed on side when the ball was kicked....but I have no evidence to substantiate that.

Edited by TRO

Share this post


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

After Saturday I don’t think you should be too high and mighty about penalties and offsides!

That was exactly my point....both legitimate.

Edited by TRO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leveller said:

Really? I’ve seen Alan Nixon argue this. But surely FFP helps protect fine old clubs from the possibility of rogue owners crushing them. Look at Bolton. I’m not saying FFP could prevent that, but it might help. While you have a wealthy owner able and willing to pump money in, you’re fine. But how would you feel if an ambitious owner overspent, failed to get you promoted and walked away, leaving the club in liquidation? 

You can always assume that a new rich owner will pick up the tab, but the Bolton mess shows that a tipping point can be reached where the club is no longer worth the price needed to keep it going.

I absolutely agree with what you're saying here. It's vitally important that we find a way to protect clubs who are in the position that Bolton are in, or that we ourselves were in during the summer - the problem is that the current rules both fail to allow that protection and at the same time prevent clubs being able to bridge the gap to promotion whilst keeping within the rules.

There are other, better methods for protection - debt measures for example, that would still allow for investment and still allow a club to run at a large loss if that loss were covered in other ways. it's worth noting that the Bolton problem, and ours both exist within FFP - those rules didn't prevent either problem.

As things stand, we're heading for a point where the championship will be three groups; those breaking the rules to try to get promoted, those starting the season with a points penalty for breaking the rules and those that are desperately struggling to survive - and on top of that, we're approaching a point where getting up and staying up is becoming harder and harder as the gap between Premier League money and Championship money grows - for me, those are rules that are manifestly not working in promoting a healthy and competitive EFL.

I'm not saying have no rules, I just think the current rules don't work and they need looking at again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Gibson really is a bitter little man. He was once hailed as one of the best football owner's around. He now comes over as someone who points the finger at other clubs simply because his own club are going down the pan. He's looking for a reason for that which is not too close to home to make it uncomfortable for him. He has not been shy to spend money in the past and has been forced to sell players following relegation as we were, but took a bit longer to do so. No doubt a few other smaller clubs will like the idea of having a pot at us as well. Sooner we get up the better.    

I normally find what you say fair, but this is just...not.

Too many people with C&B blinkers on, perhaps.

Gibson's basically right, as far as I can work it out. He's been a good owner, and he's funded his club when he was allowed to and able to, and then he's complied with FFP rules once that became the priority/way of the world. He's been a well behaved, honourable owner.

WIth Villa, we've had a chancer took over who made a massive gamble and nearly bankrupted us, we just scraped inside last season's FFP rules. Since then we've seen a drop in income this season due to the last, smaller, parachute payment, we've seen a drop of 26 million in the allowable losses figure on top of that, and nothing like a reduction in costs of around 40 million which would be needed to meet FFP this season. Whether it's Steve Gibson, me (not a bena counter), various financial boffins - we're all wondering "How's Villa going to claim to meet FFP this season?" He's spot on. Where have we found 40 million plus in cost savings to comply?

It's got nothing to do with "smaller clubs" or whatever "size" we think a club is. That's fine if that's your bag in terms of willy waving about the merits of your favourite team compared to someone else's. But when it's about Fair Play rules, then it's about compliance (or not) with rules and about red and black numbers.

Don't like FFP - fine, but while it's in place "cheating" as QPR did, as small heath did - well we can't say "it's OK if (and I stress if) Villa's done it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Gibson's basically right, as far as I can work it out. He's been a good owner, and he's funded his club when he was allowed to and able to, and then he's complied with FFP rules once that became the priority/way of the world. He's been a well behaved, honourable owner.

And herein lies the problem. You're absolutely right, Steve Gibson has been an excellent owner over a long period, an honourable and decent bloke. If he stays that way and follows the rules, Boro will never make the top half of the Championship, let alone threaten promotion.

It's not him that's bad, and whilst you can make the argument that other owners are, for me the rule is so restrictive as to make the idea of successfully being promoted and sticking in the Premier league impossible without cheating (QPR) or gaming (Villa, Leeds, Derby, Wolves etc) the regulation. 

There are better ways to protect clubs, that will still allow enough growth so that the jump of promotion isn't impossible.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

If he stays that way and follows the rules, Boro will never make the top half of the Championship, let alone threaten promotion.

They did exactly  - got promoted - a couple of years back, Scott. They then went down again, but they got up quite easily.

Obviously there's a real gulf between the top part of the Prem and any promoted team, but once up, there's money, no FFP and a decent chance to stay up, as well as the prospect of a cushion if you drop down again.

Share this post


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

If you care to watch the video from behind the goal that's on this site.....It was clear as daylight a push to the ground on Hourihane....I was unsure at the match due to the angle.....but it's crystal clear.

As for the Weimann goal.....He was offside.

However, we had enough chances with our depleted team to have won 2 matches.....so justice was done.

There is also a claim that our offside ( Tammy Abraham)was indeed on side when the ball was kicked....but I have no evidence to substantiate that.

Which video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, blandy said:

I normally find what you say fair, but this is just...not.

Too many people with C&B blinkers on, perhaps.

Gibson's basically right, as far as I can work it out. He's been a good owner, and he's funded his club when he was allowed to and able to, and then he's complied with FFP rules once that became the priority/way of the world. He's been a well behaved, honourable owner.

WIth Villa, we've had a chancer took over who made a massive gamble and nearly bankrupted us, we just scraped inside last season's FFP rules. Since then we've seen a drop in income this season due to the last, smaller, parachute payment, we've seen a drop of 26 million in the allowable losses figure on top of that, and nothing like a reduction in costs of around 40 million which would be needed to meet FFP this season. Whether it's Steve Gibson, me (not a bena counter), various financial boffins - we're all wondering "How's Villa going to claim to meet FFP this season?" He's spot on. Where have we found 40 million plus in cost savings to comply?

It's got nothing to do with "smaller clubs" or whatever "size" we think a club is. That's fine if that's your bag in terms of willy waving about the merits of your favourite team compared to someone else's. But when it's about Fair Play rules, then it's about compliance (or not) with rules and about red and black numbers.

Don't like FFP - fine, but while it's in place "cheating" as QPR did, as small heath did - well we can't say "it's OK if (and I stress if) Villa's done it.

 

Who knows where we’ve found it ? Who actually knows we either needed to find it, or even whether we have. 

But it seems to me there’s nothing wrong with Gibson asking a question, and there’s nothing wrong with Clubs saying, “ this is how we have done it”.

But implying as he has that other Clubs are doing something wrong  just because they have spent a lot is as daft now as it was with Wolves.

It’s not “ cheating” or “ getting around the rules” if you comply with them. And if someone else doesn’t do it in as advantageous way that’d be their problem.

It 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Who knows where we’ve found it ? Who actually knows we either needed to find it, or even whether we have. 

But it seems to me there’s nothing wrong with Gibson asking a question, and there’s nothing wrong with Clubs saying, “ this is how we have done it”.

But implying as he has that other Clubs are doing something wrong  just because they have spent a lot is as daft now as it was with Wolves.

It’s not “ cheating” or “ getting around the rules” if you comply with them. And if someone else doesn’t do it in as advantageous way that’d be their problem.

It 

In fairness the bone of contention with the Wolves thing wasn’t really to do with how much they spent (although admittedly that was questioned as well).

I’m more relaxed about this whole thing than I was a while back, I feel like we’re in reasonably safe hands and they’re navigating our way through it in a correct manner so if people want to question it, fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

implying as he has that other Clubs are doing something wrong  just because they have spent a lot is as daft now as it was with Wolves.

It’s not “ cheating” or “ getting around the rules” if you comply with them

To be fair to him, the article says that "in his view other clubs are manipulating the rules by allocating some costs to stay in line.

Derby... sold their Pride Park stadium to owner Mel Morris and then leased it back ...Derby are said to be operating under a “soft transfer embargo”, ..as the club’s accounts are being looked at by the EFL.

So it more than looks like they have done something on the edge of permissible/not permissible and for the life of me I can't see that we've not done some ruse if we are apparently gonna comply. If we haven't we won't. He's right, IMO, and it's fair enough to voice his concerns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Purslow says we're in line with regs, or we've found a loophole, I'm fine with that. Beats suspicion from jealous chairmen or armchair accountants. I'm personally bored of all that.

And Steve Gibson can still be presented with my fandanglers. Benevolent custodian or not, I've always thought he was a bit of a prick. 

Share this post


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

After Saturday I don’t think you should be too high and mighty about penalties and offsides!

Think you need to go listen to some tunes to help you get over past weekend. Tunes such as but, not limited to:

Loser by Beck

Smalltown Boy by Bronski Beat

King of wishful thinking by Go West

I'm sure you get the idea ;)

Share this post


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

Which video?

2 hours ago, omariqy said:

Which video?

The one on "Ratings and reactions" bottom of page 7

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mazrim said:

If Purslow says we're in line with regs, or we've found a loophole, I'm fine with that. Beats suspicion from jealous chairmen or armchair accountants. I'm personally bored of all that.

And Steve Gibson can still be presented with my fandanglers. Benevolent custodian or not, I've always thought he was a bit of a prick. 

Its unlikely Purslow will quote "we've found a loop hole"

Purslow was instrumental in creating the damn thing.....I trust him when he say's we will be ok.....no more questions......"curiosity killed the cat"

It is not our job to tell other clubs how to do it, anymore than it is to tell them a week before what our line up will be, or what we do in training.

Edited by TRO
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

To be fair to him, the article says that "in his view other clubs are manipulating the rules by allocating some costs to stay in line.

Derby... sold their Pride Park stadium to owner Mel Morris and then leased it back ...Derby are said to be operating under a “soft transfer embargo”, ..as the club’s accounts are being looked at by the EFL.

So it more than looks like they have done something on the edge of permissible/not permissible and for the life of me I can't see that we've not done some ruse if we are apparently gonna comply. If we haven't we won't. He's right, IMO, and it's fair enough to voice his concerns.

If they’ve sold their ground then leased it back, and that’s not allowed, they should be punished. If it’s allowed, they shouldn’t. If the Rules are unclear that’s a problem for the EFL, not the multi million pound businesses affected......EFL would still have to decide if it’s ok or not then it’d be contested.

I don’t understand why some are saying compliance in certain ways is a “ ruse”. 

As it happens, in that specific example, I can’t see what is wrong in principle. If they’ve sold their ground they’ve lost that asset, gained a lump sum, and incurred a long term cost. That doesn’t sound like anything of anything to me.

At the moment it just sounds like some Clubs have a better handle on the rules and better accountants than others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

To be fair to him, the article says that "in his view other clubs are manipulating the rules by allocating some costs to stay in line.

Derby... sold their Pride Park stadium to owner Mel Morris and then leased it back ...Derby are said to be operating under a “soft transfer embargo”, ..as the club’s accounts are being looked at by the EFL.

So it more than looks like they have done something on the edge of permissible/not permissible and for the life of me I can't see that we've not done some ruse if we are apparently gonna comply. If we haven't we won't. He's right, IMO, and it's fair enough to voice his concerns.

Before experiencing the joy of early retirement I spent my life as an Investigator.

I opened countless investigations where someone looked like they’d done something on the edge of permissible. In the end there’s a judgment as to whether it is, or isn’t permissible.

If it’s decided it’s permissible it’d be wholly inappropriate to then describe the person of having “ cheated”, “ got around the rules”, “ gamed the system”, or anything else.

So I’ve no issue with anyone asking “ look into this”......but I’ve no time for the idea that you can comply and be cheating at the same time.

That’s where I’m at, and I’d imagine and hope that’s where the businessmen are at.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


×
×
  • Create New...
Â