The NSWE Board

[blandy]

3 hours ago, avfcDJ said:

Can somebody explain how this affects the FFP rules? Isn't there a limit on spending by owners? 

If you can create a picture book to explain, that'd be ace.

Parachute payments are taken into account in EFL type calculations.

If we go down after this season we'd get only 2 years of parachute payments, not 3.

Quote

Subject to Rules D.26, E.26, E.35, and E.39, each Relegated Club shall receive the following fees:
D.25.1. in the first Season after being relegated, a sum equivalent to 55% of the Relegated Club Shares;

D.25.2. in the second Season after being relegated, a sum equivalent to 45% the Relegated Club Shares; and
D.25.3. in the third Season after being relegated, a sum equivalent to 20% of the Relegated Club Shares.
D.26. A Relegated Club that was in membership of the League for only one Season immediately prior to being relegated will not receive the fee set out in Rule D.25.3.

While we're up (long may that last) we need to comply with PL FFP type rules. In broad terms you can't increase your spending on players (wages, fees etc.) by more than 7 million a year, unless your income from doing football (not owner bungs) covers it. So promoted clubs obviously get a huge income increase and are in general terms allowed to spend that profit increase.

Quote

If in any of Contract Years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, the sum of a Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments exceeds £67m, £74m or £81m, respectively, the relevant Club must elect to either: (a) be assessed by the Board on the ‘Prior Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.19 applies); or (b) be assessed by the Board on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.20 applies).
E.19. Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘Prior Year Basis’, the Club must satisfy the Board of any of the following:
E.19.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments has not increased by more than £7m when compared to the previous Contract Year;
E.19.2. that the excess increase, over and above the £7m referred to at Rule E.19.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as compared to the previous Contract Year and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit; or 

E.19.3. that the excess increase, over and above the figures set out in Rule E.18, as applicable, has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.
E.20. Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’, the Club must satisfy the Board of any of the following:
E.20.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments has not increased by more than £19m (in Contract Year 2016/17), £26m (in Contract Year 2017/18) or £33m (in Contract Year 2018/19), as applicable, when compared with Contract Year 2012/13; or 

E.20.2. that the excess increase, over and above the figures referred to at Rule E.20.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as compared with the like figures in Contract Year 2012/13 and/or Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.

If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m:
E.59.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and E.59.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.
E.60. The sum set out in Rule E.59 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.

From the Premier League Handbook for this season. A pdf of which can be found by yahoogling "2019-20-PL-Handbook-220819.pdf" 

[Dodgyknees]

Cheers @blandy 

 

[Sam-AVFC]

2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

They had to sell the stadium to do this. 

But capital expenditure on infrastructure isn’t counted in the calculations so they could just build another stadium then buy that one too...

[Vive_La_Villa]

Thanks @blandy 

I’m still confused has hell though. Does any of that explain why Sheffield United and Norwich decided against strengthening their squad more than they did?

[Jareth]

38 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Thanks @blandy 

I’m still confused has hell though. Does any of that explain why Sheffield United and Norwich decided against strengthening their squad more than they did?

Cos their owners saw a guaranteed £100 mill, for being prem, but their heart is championship or lower. It was a lottery win for them. 

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Thanks @blandy 

I’m still confused has hell though. Does any of that explain why Sheffield United and Norwich decided against strengthening their squad more than they did?

Sure, kind of.

Our owners have said for a while they're serious about challenging and getting the club right back up to the top, they're not mucking about, they're not going to be content to just sit and collect the telly money and have a lower mid-table side, that might go down again. They're quite happy and willing to "go for it" (none of that is an actual quote, it's just my recollection of their approach as voiced by Purslow and Deano etc. Further, we needed a lot of new players, due to loans leaving, the age of others and so on. We had to spend money and we did, as much as we were permitted, basically.

Norwich and Sheffield United have their own approaches and situations. They're both also well run clubs, but they've taken approaches for their situations. Managers who had teams that didn't need as much spent as ours did. Plus managers who'd been there longer and had teams more to their liking, or further down the road that ours was. On top of that there's a strong reason not to "blow the lot" right from the off. It gives them room in January, once they've seen how they're doing. It means if they don't spend all they could, they will be sustainable and financially secure. Norwich have an ownership who worked long and hard to unravel a financial mess fro ma decade ago, whilst not being personally loaded - they won't want to, nor should they, ever put their club in that mess again.

Sheffield United too were pooling about in Div 1 not long ago - they are in different circumstances, though they have spent money in the summer.

Another aspect is that Villa as a Club is a bigger name internationally, and has more scope to raise revenue as a consequence - plus bigger ground, more fans etc.

So Nodge and Utd have been better run for longer than Villa has been in recent years, and their squads were in a better condition at the end of last season.

Good luck to all 3 of us, as I think all of the 3 have a lot going for them.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Cos their owners saw a guaranteed £100 mill, for being prem, but their heart is championship or lower. It was a lottery win for them. 

No, I disagree. Largely for the reasons outlined above, but it's also worth remembering that Sheff Utd were having an ownership dispute between a loaded Saudi Sheik and an old school family who joint owned the club. Until that was resolved last month (the Sheik won) they couldn't really splurge to the same extent, because the then joint owners had a massive falling out.

[sidcow]

On 10/10/2019 at 17:58, Vive_La_Villa said:

Thanks @blandy 

I’m still confused has hell though. Does any of that explain why Sheffield United and Norwich decided against strengthening their squad more than they did?

 

23 hours ago, Jareth said:

Cos their owners saw a guaranteed £100 mill, for being prem, but their heart is championship or lower. It was a lottery win for them. 

Basically instead of blowing it on hard liquor, hookers and coke, they are putting it into the bank for a rainy day. 

Saddos. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by sidcow

[Dave-R]

5 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

They had to sell the stadium to do this. 

That was sold in May correct?? Our play off final was 27th may, we was in the championship for how long with our current owners. I suspect that the sale of our stadium wasn't to ease FFP but to add funds for our season now so we could get on and start buying. The sale happened before we entered the premier so any rules that may of been against the sale of a club in the premier wouldn't of applied. No matter how much clubs or the prem league wanted to get us done they couldnt because even though we had won the play off final until we had that premier certificate and it was official, the business and sale of our club was done in the EFL.

I think our Owners, Purslow knew and know how to play these rules and if need be for plans to succeed and to move our club in the right direction, have so far out played FFP, the EFL and the Premier and there rules and regulations. You can see were not only in safe hands but we have very smart players working behind closed doors looking at everything and working every angle to make our great club a successful club again.

Many thought we'd of been hit a while ago now by some fine in some way or another, the amount of story's, complaints or even threats and Purslow always came out and stated In someway we would be ok, he was right as well.

If we did somehow drop and Purslow started saying all over again we would be ok again, I really would take his word on it, he really does have me believing that if he says everything will be fine, then everything will be fine.

Like I said our men at the top in charge of Aston Villa have really gained my trust and i believe 200% that we would be fine with FFP if we dropped.

[VillaJ100]

Thing is though the stadium thing was a one roll of the dice move. We need to hope it pays off

[PieFacE]

20 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

Thing is though the stadium thing was a one roll of the dice move. We need to hope it pays off

I don't really see how it is? 

[TRO]

4 hours ago, Dave-R said:

That was sold in May correct?? Our play off final was 27th may, we was in the championship for how long with our current owners. I suspect that the sale of our stadium wasn't to ease FFP but to add funds for our season now so we could get on and start buying. The sale happened before we entered the premier so any rules that may of been against the sale of a club in the premier wouldn't of applied. No matter how much clubs or the prem league wanted to get us done they couldnt because even though we had won the play off final until we had that premier certificate and it was official, the business and sale of our club was done in the EFL.

I think our Owners, Purslow knew and know how to play these rules and if need be for plans to succeed and to move our club in the right direction, have so far out played FFP, the EFL and the Premier and there rules and regulations. You can see were not only in safe hands but we have very smart players working behind closed doors looking at everything and working every angle to make our great club a successful club again.

Many thought we'd of been hit a while ago now by some fine in some way or another, the amount of story's, complaints or even threats and Purslow always came out and stated In someway we would be ok, he was right as well.

If we did somehow drop and Purslow started saying all over again we would be ok again, I really would take his word on it, he really does have me believing that if he says everything will be fine, then everything will be fine.

Like I said our men at the top in charge of Aston Villa have really gained my trust and i believe 200% that we would be fine with FFP if we dropped.

Dave....I would prefer to think our owners know how to conduct their business to their liking and comply with the rules at the same time.....it sounds more concillatory than " play"

after all....

nods as good as a wink to a blind man.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by TRO

[Demitri_C]

On 09/10/2019 at 23:04, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think we’ll struggle to keep them both if we stay up never mind if we got relegated. 

As long we spent the money wisely it wouldn’t be the end of the world.  Many teams have sold their best players in the past and still continued to improve.

 

Your right if the big boys come in. But united are a sinking ship. Honestly the way the club is going. If we stay up and become established and invest wisely we can be competing with the likes of united under the glazers.

Obviously if it's likes of Liverpool and spurs be hard to keep them if they make big enough bids for mcginn and grealish.

I think the club though will invest it wisely

[blandy]

10 hours ago, PieFacE said:

I don't really see how it is? 

Well, we've only got (had) one stadium to sell, so we can't sell another one!

But it is a one off, in reality anyway. The Club sold it to another NSWE company in order to meet the EFL's FFP regs. AFAIK the valuation is still being looked into by the PL on behalf of the EFL.

It may be possible that at a later stage the club could buy it back from the NSWE Co. it was sold to, but I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon, for a number of reasons. I mean why would it? firstly it would be a football club expense that is unnecessary, secondly it would make the initial move to sell it look even more blatant, then there's the potential for Ground developments - if these are managed by the current NWSE company that now owns the ground, there may be some tax or other beneifits which might arise.

[ender4]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Your right if the big boys come in. But united are a sinking ship. Honestly the way the club is going. If we stay up and become established and invest wisely we can be competing with the likes of united under the glazers.

 

I'm going to disagree.  

We are many many years away from competing against Man United, irrelevant of how deep pockets NSWE have and how wisely they spend it.

Man Utd have a revenue of two-thirds of a BILLION pounds every year.  They have a team worth 100's of millions and could easily spend £200-300 million this coming summer with a new top manager. 

With all the will in the world, NSWE can probably spend another £40-100million in the summer, and thats adding to a team worth a couple of hundred million.

Our premier league revenue is going to cap out around a max of £200 million (Newcastle turnover £179m last season). We will hit FFP barriers to any major spending.  

[Demitri_C]

30 minutes ago, ender4 said:

I'm going to disagree.  

We are many many years away from competing against Man United, irrelevant of how deep pockets NSWE have and how wisely they spend it.

Man Utd have a revenue of two-thirds of a BILLION pounds every year.  They have a team worth 100's of millions and could easily spend £200-300 million this coming summer with a new top manager. 

With all the will in the world, NSWE can probably spend another £40-100million in the summer, and thats adding to a team worth a couple of hundred million.

Our premier league revenue is going to cap out around a max of £200 million (Newcastle turnover £179m last season). We will hit FFP barriers to any major spending.  

I didn't say straight away.

But you raise some points but I would argue that money doesn't and revenue doesn't guarantee success either. Look at us in the championship for example.

United's net spend these days is actually not that high despite their large revenues. The glazers are not ambitious and only for making money for themselves. They don't really care that united are not winning titles.

Look at leicester they don't make as much money as united and in my opinion are a lot better than them.

Yes money helps but the management, strong squad morale and positive leadership are all ingredients to become successful.

United are a sinking ship under the glazers.until they leave united won't be challenging for any titles.

[Vive_La_Villa]

36 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I didn't say straight away.

But you raise some points but I would argue that money doesn't and revenue doesn't guarantee success either. Look at us in the championship for example.

United's net spend these days is actually not that high despite their large revenues. The glazers are not ambitious and only for making money for themselves. They don't really care that united are not winning titles.

Look at leicester they don't make as much money as united and in my opinion are a lot better than them.

Yes money helps but the management, strong squad morale and positive leadership are all ingredients to become successful.

United are a sinking ship under the glazers.until they leave united won't be challenging for any titles.

To be fair City and Liverpool are so far ahead I don’t think any other team will be challenging for the title for quite some years. I hope I’m wrong about that. 
 

Man U’s best bet will be the domestic cup competitions like the rest of us.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[mjmooney]

21 hours ago, blandy said:

it's also worth remembering that Sheff Utd were having an ownership dispute between a loaded Saudi Sheik and an old school family who joint owned the club. Until that was resolved last month (the Sheik won) 

Except - according to my Blades-supporting mates - the Saudi sheikh is NOT loaded, he's a Xia-style asset stripper. They are not happy. 

[Demitri_C]

5 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

To be fair City and Liverpool are so far ahead I don’t think any other team will be challenging for the title for quite some years. I hope I’m wrong about that. 
 

Man U’s best bet will be the domestic cup competitions like the rest of us.

Absolutely. But a club of United size that is unacceptable expectations to their fans.

[A'Villan]

3 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

To be fair City and Liverpool are so far ahead I don’t think any other team will be challenging for the title for quite some years. I hope I’m wrong about that. 
 

Man U’s best bet will be the domestic cup competitions like the rest of us.

City and Liverpool reign of title terror for years to come you say, hey?

Right now, the chemistry, coach, standard of play and momentum is with those two for sure, and this season the title will probably go to one of them.

Certainly agree that Klopp and Guardiola are great coaches with an abundance of quality in their squad, from youth to veterans, everyone's capable and contributing.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but Manchester United are the only club to truly dominate the Premier League era with 21 consecutive years of top 3 finishes.

Chelsea had a good go at a comparable legacy of success, albeit from a different model, they had 12 top 3 finishes in 15 years from memory.

The model at United consisted of arguably the GOAT manager in SAF leading some of histories finest players to a dynasty that goes above and beyond most.

At Chelsea however, unlike United who had one manager their entire reign, had a new manager EVERY season, except for Mourinho's and Ancelotti's stays.

City have 8 out of the last 10 years of top 3 finishes. It's hard to deny they look like maintain what's current and investing in a bright future. Could see them doing it.

Liverpool in the last 10 years have only three top 3 finishes. Not that will impede what they are doing now and building for future, but only last year did they really excel again.

I'm trying to say that domination of the league for years on end happens, but is quite remarkable, it requires a myriad of complementary factors to form chemistry and success.

Leicester winning the title, whilst being an anomaly in Premier League times, shows that the gap is not insurmountable, that remarkable feats are not isolated to a few top clubs.

For that reason I think City and even more so Liverpool, have a long way to go before they can celebrate or think the next few years belongs to them, and their legacy.

Hell, we have a lot of chemistry going at our club from top to bottom, maybe we pull a Leicester at some point down the road!