The AVFC FFP thread

[Nigel]

4 hours ago, Hoof hearted said:

They can't "ban promotion", they can concoct a points deduction punishment to stop us going up but can't just say "congratulations on the championship but  you're not promoted", to suggest it, is scaremongering of the highest order mate.

They would surely have to give prior notice if the punishments are to be increased to this magnitude.  Precedent has been set!

[Mazrim]

Prudent, yes. Tight, no. They're loaded and will have to use financial muscle to get us to the PL. They havent bought us to tread water in the second tier.

Then a mix of the right sponsorships, investments, youth scouting, scouting in general, facilities and partnerships can deliver a top team that's sustainable. That's all anybody could ask.

[TheAuthority]

18 hours ago, hippo said:

There is that - But I can't imagine even a billionaire swallowing a £45m QPR type fine - thats £45m into thin air ! 

The £45 mill was a headline - it wasn't a real fine.  

I think over £20 million had to be put into the club by the owners to pay off debt (exactly what FFP is stopping owners from doing!!!)

£17 million is payable to the EFL over 10 years !!! Wow, a huge £1.7 million per year (nothing in football terms.) 

Basically FFP is bollox- the clubs know it, the EFL knows it and thus far it seems, as long as you throw them some cash and they 'appear' to be being tough the rules can be bent and broken.

[Silent_Bob]

23 hours ago, hippo said:

There is that - But I can't imagine even a billionaire swallowing a £45m QPR type fine - thats £45m into thin air ! 

I think they ended up having to pay a fine of around £17m and the rest going towards reducing debts.

It's ironic that the penalty for spending money you don't have is a huge fine to be paid with money you then obviously don't have. How that will prevent clubs from bankrupcy is beyond me.

But £45m into thin air would be more or less how we have spent our transfer funds.

 

[villabromsgrove]

FFP was allegedly introduced as a financial protection for clubs, to stop them self harming.

It's now clear that was not the reason for it's inception. 

FFP is the big stick which the big 14 European clubs wanted to beat any upstart clubs away from their own collective pot of gold.

The message that FFP sends out to genuinely rich prospective buyers is that they should only invest in "currently top clubs" to retain the status quo. Any attempt to change the fortunes of a club outside the 'inner circle' will be met with huge penalties and stumbling blocks! 

[omariqy]

Shaun Harvey's comments were quite interesting on FFP in general. Considering we were under a soft embargo and now are free to make signings it would suggest that the league are happy that a) the owners will continue to fund Villa and b) with our plan to meet the FFP requirements. 

[Silent_Bob]

23 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Shaun Harvey's comments were quite interesting on FFP in general. Considering we were under a soft embargo and now are free to make signings it would suggest that the league are happy that a) the owners will continue to fund Villa and b) with our plan to meet the FFP requirements. 

Not sure about b). I don't think we would have to submit plans for how we will avoid breaking rules in the future.

 

[Paul33]

21 hours ago, Hoof hearted said:

They can't "ban promotion", they can concoct a points deduction punishment to stop us going up but can't just say "congratulations on the championship but  you're not promoted", to suggest it, is scaremongering of the highest order mate.

"the Football League are now able to impose a points deduction during the current season, or demote a club from an automatic promotion position into the play-offs (or out of the play-offs altogether)."

Source >>>>> http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

[Raver50032]

It is a restriction on trade. Technically, it should be illegal in 2018.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, villabromsgrove said:

FFP was allegedly introduced as a financial protection for clubs, to stop them self harming.

It's now clear that was not the reason for it's inception. 

FFP is the big stick which the big 14 European clubs wanted to beat any upstart clubs away from their own collective pot of gold.

The message that FFP sends out to genuinely rich prospective buyers is that they should only invest in "currently top clubs" to retain the status quo. Any attempt to change the fortunes of a club outside the 'inner circle' will be met with huge penalties and stumbling blocks! 

The EFL FFP rules are entirely unrelated to the big 14 European Club, were decided upon by the EFL and are (were) voted in/on by the EFL clubs themselves.

[A'Villan]

I really wasn't expecting to log back on this week and have such good news, in regards to our change in ownership and ability to pay dues. Chuffed.

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

The EFL FFP rules are entirely unrelated to the big 14 European Club, were decided upon by the EFL and are (were) voted in/on by the EFL clubs themselves.

They seem to be somewhat similar to the system employed here in a semi-pro league whereby the design is centered around a balance of investment and self sustainability (promotion of academy prospects for example), clubs wanting to be promoted must undergo some scrutiny as to their financial capabilities and plan on top of earning the right through the home and away season. A failure to meet financial obligations results in penalties and a review of where the club is at.

One lesson Villa as a club needs to learn fast is a better recruitment and negotiation policy. That's largely how we've ended up in the poop.

Edited August 2, 2018 by A'Villan

[GENTLEMAN]

Does anyone know of any FFP-Villa related reading? Im in full on procrastination mode! Im currently digesting Swiss Ramble's piece.

Thanks in advance

[villabromsgrove]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

The EFL FFP rules are entirely unrelated to the big 14 European Club, were decided upon by the EFL and are (were) voted in/on by the EFL clubs themselves.

Blandy, your reply may be factual but it ignores the reality of my argument. EFL FFP rules are in force due to the introduction of FFP by UEFA in 2011. They may have different financial parameters to those in place in the Premier League, but they are part of the same legislation. 

There are 72 clubs in the EFL, and since the implementation of EFL FFP there have only been a handful of clubs with owners rich enough to exceed the FFP limits.

Of course the other 60 plus clubs voted for the EFL's more stringent restrictions. Their only chance of competing with the 'big boys' was to severely cap the richer clubs spending.

It's a totally unfair restriction which actually impacts less than a dozen clubs at most.

It's in the EFL's best interests to keep clubs like Villa in the Championship. We add value and glamour to 44 league matches a season. Other clubs sell more tickets when they play Villa. Put crudely we're a nice little earner for them, and there's always the chance they can add sizeable FFP fines to the EFL money chest as well!

Club owners should be allowed to spend whatever they can afford. The one legal rule should be that when the club accounts are produced annually, there will be ZERO debt attached to the club. Club owners could then choose to personally bankroll the club without putting the club in financial jeopardy.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

EFL FFP rules are in force due to the introduction of FFP by UEFA in 2011. They may have different financial parameters to those in place in the Premier League, but they are part of the same legislation. 

On the quoted part  - No. EFL rules are in force because the EFL (through its clubs) decided to introduce them. They are not part of the same legislation as UEFA FFP. 

On your opinion part - that's your view and I respect it. It don't share it, but that's fine.

[GENTLEMAN]

9 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

 Put crudely we're a nice little earner for them, and there's always the chance they can add sizeable FFP fines to the EFL money chest as well!

To my understanding FFP fines go to 'grassroots' charities, perhaps it could be argued that they should be distributed between the clubs of EFL on a sliding scale dependent on compliance with FFP.

 

14 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

Club owners should be allowed to spend whatever they can afford. The one legal rule should be that when the club accounts are produced annually, there will be ZERO debt attached to the club. Club owners could then choose to personally bankroll the club without putting the club in financial jeopardy.

Do you mean only debt as a narrow term related to loans or more broadly to include liabilities too (wages, running costs etc.)? Would you propose attaching all liabilities to individual owners? 

I largely see FFP as a scheme with good intentions that has imperfections. I really don't see the conspiracy here. I don't want to comment further as I'm not as informed as I would like to be on the matter but I'm trying to remedy that through extra reading. It's an interesting topic.  

[blandy]

On 02/08/2018 at 13:41, villabromsgrove said:

Club owners should be allowed to spend whatever they can afford. The one legal rule should be that when the club accounts are produced annually, there will be ZERO debt attached to the club. Club owners could then choose to personally bankroll the club without putting the club in financial jeopardy.

That doesn't really pass scrutiny though, does it. Here's why. Let's say my name is Tony, or Randolph or something, right. Say I am the wealthy owner of a Diesel business. I buy a club, I decide to get promoted I need to appoint a good manger, buy the best players - and to get them to come pay them big wages.

Year 1, spend an eff ton of money, doing that, but a bad decision by a ref in a final, the manager not rotating players and they get tired and injured means we just miss out on promotion. We've spent a ton, but I'm rich and pay the overdraft off to meet FFP.

In the summer, the wife does a divorce on me, and my Gov't puts a ban on money leaving my native country. Diesel is now an unpopular fuel and my business takes a hit.

So season 2 - all those high wage players on 3 and 4 year contracts, the high maintenance manager - they underperform again, I sack the manager, he sues me. I can't pay the overdraft, can't meet FFP, can't get money out the Country. Tax man comes knocking....desperately seeking a new buyer to inject money, I fail and the club gets a winding up order. Sell the ground, sell everything...

Or in essence the "carry no debt at the end of (any) one season" doesn't work because liabilities and credit due carry across multiple years and circs change between seasons.

 

[villabromsgrove]

You raise some good points there Blandy, as did Gentleman in his prior post.

I believe that it should be possible for any owner to approach the EFL and prove their ability to safely exceed FFP.

The EFL could then insist on holding a bank indemnity for somewhere between twenty and fifty million pounds depending on the size of the intended investment, before approval to invest is given.

If for any reason the owner defaults, then his secured indemnity is used by thee EFL to cover all cost over runs. The remainder is then returned to the (now previous) owner  when his last liability is settled.

This is obviously off the top of my head, but there must be a way to allow a provably rich owner to seriously invest in his own club .... safely.

[paul1984]

4 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

You raise some good points there Blandy, as did Gentleman in his prior post.

I believe that it should be possible for any owner to approach the EFL and prove their ability to safely exceed FFP.

The EFL could then insist on holding a bank indemnity for somewhere between twenty and fifty million pounds depending on the size of the intended investment, before approval to invest is given.

If for any reason the owner defaults, then his secured indemnity is used by thee EFL to cover all cost over runs. The remainder is then returned to the (now previous) owner  when his last liability is settled.

This is obviously off the top of my head, but there must be a way to allow a provably rich owner to seriously invest in his own club .... safely.

That's exactly what I think, debts should be to the owner and contract liabilities should be subject to some kind of guarantee if it is over what a club can realistically pay.

[TRO]

I'll bet HDE would have loved FFP......A safehouse to his perfect design.

seriously, I don't understand how and when this "thing" is ever going to leave us.....surely there are accountants at Villa who can draw up a plan to deal with it, with some kind of conclusion attached to it....it appears to be the most central thing that is holding the club back.

[Jareth]

They should lift all FFP on the championship and let anyone spend anything, and then market it as an alternative to the premier league, it would be huge.