The AVFC FFP thread

[villabromsgrove]

20 hours ago, GENTLEMAN said:

*based upon estimates as accounts yet to be released

Good piece on FFP Tests

more on link. Also, Good Blog on FFP

Thanks for the links GENTLEMAN.

I've read both, and they provide some illuminating detail.

A couple of general comments stood out.

One regarding the purpose of FFP being nothing to do with "fair play", but everything to do with maintaining and increasing the gap between big clubs and smaller clubs.

Another opinion saying that FFP penalised the Championship clubs without parachute payments, and as such was unfair and not fit for purpose in the Championship.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

FFP seemed to be very concerned about our spending under Xia and restricted it. It simcr turns out rightly so. However under our new owners they seem to have relaxed. I wonder why?

Pedantry maybe, but the Football League were concerned that the club had been threatened with a winding up order by the Taxman. That's where that comes from. In terms of FFP there is no body called "FFP", but there is a set of EFL rules around Financial sustainability and Responsibility, and we're way behind the  8 ball on those at the moment, so unless the club brings in a lot of incoming/or cuts costs massively, then come March time we're in deep poo again.

[Cjay]

Could someone explain the FFP thing and how you are now fine please?

I understand the takeover etc, but an owner is only meant to invest so much, besides as we both know throwing cash at a problem doesnt alwayd work put for the best.

 

Now i read your after Joe Bryan.

 

Derby were meant to be in trouble, they are signing players left right and centre. 

Birmingham are meant to be in trouble.

 

I really dont understand FFP, just thought you guys may know more because of your recent issues.

[VILLAMARV]

6 minutes ago, Cjay said:

Derby were meant to be in trouble, they are signing players left right and centre. 

I was mentioning this somewhere the other day

I have no idea either but my best guess is there was a loophole found and exploited by Wolves last year in the accountancy department and a few others are going to follow suit until the laws change.

Either that or Jack's off on Thursday.........

[Cjay]

2 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

I was mentioning this somewhere the other day

I have no idea either but my best guess is there was a loophole found and exploited by Wolves last year in the accountancy department and a few others are going to follow suit until the laws change.

Either that or Jack's off on Thursday.........

Thanks for the response.

 

Just find it very confusing, frustrating i suppose given what we went through. 

I read you had to find £40mil to keep away from danger.

Either Grealish is off or as you say there is a loophole.

Doesnt seem right if your new owners can just sweep in and plug a gap they didn't create. 

Derby similar, either they breaching or there not, if they are surely they cant spend until they are straight with Ffp or whats the point of it.

Congratulations on the win though 

[Mark Albrighton]

@Cjay

I don’t know, I’m not sure we are ok to be honest. I guess it’s possibly a number of things -

The situation wasn’t/isn’t as bad as initially made out.

The owners will sell Grealish but are pretty good poker players and will wait until they get the best price possible.

The owners have given the football league assurances that the club will be run better and as they’re new, they get a little extra leeway in putting things right.

The owners know that if they fall foul of FFP, they/the club can handle it - essentially they know it’ll just be a slap on the wrist.

Or maybe it’s a combination of some or all of the above. Or some ingenious loopholes.

I was prepared to see us try and hang on to Grealish/Chester, not make any significant purchases and fudge the finances somewhere, show willing somehow. Not a well thought out plan, but it’s what I was thinking may happen.

I hadn’t anticipated us being linked with players of any significant value, so the rumours over the last couple of days have surprised me. I can only assume that Grealish will be sold to keep us in line. If he doesn’t and we still make these purchases, I’ll be completely at a loss as to what’s going on. 

[GENTLEMAN]

5 hours ago, Cjay said:

Just find it very confusing, frustrating i suppose given what we went through. 

I read you had to find £40mil to keep away from danger.

Either Grealish is off or as you say there is a loophole.

Doesnt seem right if your new owners can just sweep in and plug a gap they didn't create. 

Derby similar, either they breaching or there not, if they are surely they cant spend until they are straight with Ffp or whats the point of it.

Congratulations on the win though 

My understanding, which is still quite foetal. In a nutshell,  I personally I think the £40 million is a worst case scenario, truth be told nobody apart from those privy to the numbers at the club know. All estimates are just that, based upon a number of assumptions. 

I'm a novice but I was going to read more about FFP, football finance, and Villa in particular and put together more robust estimates, as it quite interests me, but I'm 2 weeks from submitting my thesis, so I am fully busy with that and don't need any more evils of procrastination. I think I will return to the matter in two weeks or so . However, my musings so far:

The £40 million figure comes from the Swiss Ramble blog. He conducted it after the playoff final (I think), it is an estimate based on 16/17 accounts but is based upon a number of presuppositions.

He estimates that for 17/18 season we are within the FFP limit, largely due to parachute payment and more leeway from premier league season; tests appear to be run on 3 year basis, 2 years previous accounts and estimates for the current year in March (35m/season permitted Prem & 13m/season permitted Champ). *On a side note, I think this is why teams like Derby and Forrest are spending more this season after a couple of lean years. I'd reason you will see much of this cyclic spending in the hope of getting promotion.

Anyway back to Villa. He reasons that there will be a hole of approx 40 million with 18/19 season due loss of parachute payment and 3 years in Championship lowering allowed limit. I think the guy is very knowledgable about football finance and certainly knows his stuff. However, as far as I can tell it is based upon a lot of assumptions: For instance that the wage bill remaining roughly the same from 16/17 - 18/19. However from 17/18 to 18/19 alone we have removed Johnstone, Terry, Snodgrass, Samba, Agbonglahor, Hutton (reduced terms), Grabban, Onomah from the wage bill. (£7-10 million/year is my estimate). Also not factored in sale of Gollini. Furthermore, commercial revenue remaining the same in 16/17, despite a relatively successful playoff season, a few more commercial deals and relatively triumphant 18/19 kit launch. Moreover, clubs are becoming much more savvy with how they present their accounts, which might not be producing more net profit in real terms but profit that satisfies FFP. I think if anyone can get someone to work on this particular dark art then its Sawiris/Edens. 

Regards FFP test below are quotes (thanks @blandy ) from (Mike Thornton Essay), and the new tests are not as black and white as before (the ones Leeds and QPR failed): 

Quote

The tests are much more than a simple “you can lose up to £39m in any three year period”.

All accounts are adjusted by the EFL to remove any excessive sponsorship or advertising income received from owners or related parties before the Tests are started.

Furthermore according to the linked essay, there are 3 tests: 

 

Quote

Test 1 – Companies House Accounts
Add together the profits or losses shown on the last two accounts published at Companies House.

If the total shows a loss of any amount, then the Club FAILS Test 1.

A Club that fails Test 1 then moves to a three year analysis and must supply to the EFL the last two years’ published accounts plus an estimate for the current season’s accounts,

Leading to Test 2:

Quote

Test 2 – three year LOWER loss threshold
Add together the Adjusted profits and losses for the three Account years (current season plus two previous seasons).

If these added profits and losses result in a loss of more than £15m (assuming championship only in the 3 seasons) then Test 2 (three year LOWER loss threshold) is FAILED.

Note – this LOWER loss limit is £15m total over three years, do not confuse it with the £39m UPPER loss limit for later tests.

Failing Test 2 Consequences
Clubs who fail Test 2 must then provide extra information to the EFL about their plans for the next 2 seasons. The clubs must convince the EFL that they:

have enough cash to pay all their creditors, wages and transfer fees due over the next two years

have the cash to play all their games

will be able to fulfill all their obligations under EFL rules

stay within FFP limits for the next two seasons

If a club can convince the EFL that all is well (by providing proof of secure funding along with predicted trading within FFP rules) it can continue next season without EFL interference but those who cannot do so then become subject to EFL restrictions.

I think this is key, there appears to be leeway for prudent planning. I think we fell foul of test 2 in March 17/18 season and were placed under a 'soft' embargo until the funding and financial plan was sorted and shown to the EFL, which was then lifted. This is also probably where Birmingham City failed, but perhaps couldn't offer such assurances and their hierarchy proceeded to bury heads and as such have and will receive sanctions. 

Quote

Test 3 – three year UPPER loss threshold
This test is essentially done the same way as for Test 2 but the limit used for this test is £39m (again assuming being in championship for 3 previous years). This test is similar to the original FFP test and many people think that this is the only test, however as I have shown, Test 2 (three year LOWER loss threshold) also now exists.

When the profits and losses of the estimated Adjusted accounts for this season plus the Adjusted accounts for the last two years are added together they must not exceed £39m. If they do then Test 3 (three year UPPER loss threshold) is FAILED.

The consequences of failing Test 3 are set out below.

Failing Test 3 Consequences
There are two parts to the consequences of failing Test 3. 

The first consequence is that exactly the same sanctions as failing Test 2 can be imposed. I won’t repeat them – just read the paragraph above “Sanctions for failing Test 2” about agreed budgets and soft and hard embargoes.

The second consequence is more serious: The Club can be held to be in breach of the EFL Rules and referred to the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee has a wide range of sanctions it can impose and these include a warning, a fine, points deduction, transfer embargo, suspension or expulsion from the EFL.

Villa didn't fail this test for 17/18 season, as no referral to disciplinary committee (like Birmingham City). However, consider that we had extra leeway due to year in premier league and also extra parachute money for that season compared to this.

That being said, I am optimistic for a number of reasons:

1. The EFL were satisfied with the provisions and planing that Sawiris/Edens purposed to lift the soft embargo.

2. I see the FFP regulations not as a way to punish or limit teams, like many others see them, rather they are to promote prudent, considered and secure planning. I think they're in place to prevent reckless unsecured spending not all spending, the EFL still wants clubs to be competitive. I truly believe there is leeway for negotiation, provided discussions are Franke and information is forthcoming. I don't believe they're perfect but I think they're an improvement on the 1st iteration. 

3. Given our stance on Grealish and player sales in general (disclaimer: could be negotiations, or a reassess in January situation), FFP appears to be not as serious as could be. Moreover, circumstantial evidence also arrives from Xia. I think FFP was a convenient smoke screen from him, along with 'impossible to get my money out of China now' line. My opinion is his Villa project was a calculated risk/reward strategy, raise capital to fund for 3 years within that timeframe achieve promotion and receive payout. The FFP drum was banged louder as we reached the 3 year deadline, until a crescendo of 'Chinese government blocking overseas investments' following the failure in PO final. Disclaimer: This is not fact, just my opinion and to counter that I realise that the 3 year deadline also coincides with no parachute payments and no premier league allowed limit, meaning that FFP could well be a big problem. *

 *This is not to say that I think FFP is not a problem, rather it is not as big as problem as first feared and that Sawiris/Edens have the business acumen and prudent sustainable plans to tackle it whilst Villa remain promotion competitors.

Edited August 7, 2018 by GENTLEMAN

[Pez1974]

There are simply too many unknowns in all of this; the £40m figure is based on the historical accounts we know, but the accounts do not give sufficient information to make this figure anything other than a best guess. 

We all know that Terry, Gabby, Samba etc have gone - we have a decent idea of salaries for these.
We've also lost Snoddy, Onomah, Johnstone etc. - but we don't know how much their loan fees were or how much of their salaries that we were paying. 
We had players out on loan - Gardner, Gill, Gollini, etc - we don't know if we received loans fees or how much of their salaries we were still paying. Some have now gone permanently, so we can only guess at their effect on the accounts.

We've got the potential for income from Traore's transfer to the Dogheads, for example; how much isn't certain but it's a few £m I believe. We also got about £1m (?) from Westwood's transfer to Burnley.
Is there anything else out there for Veretout, Amavi etc?
I remember Dr Tony tweeting something about making sure we get a further return from players in ther future?

And then there's the really fun bit; how much have we written down players contracts/values as a result of relegation? This could have had a massive negative affect on previous accounts which is a one off transaction meaning the following year will see a bounce.

I know we had cash-flow issues a few months ago; but cash and profit do not necessarily follow each other in the short term - especially in football when timing difference can stretch over years. When we sign a player for, say, £10m, that value hit's the accounts immediately. However, that cash is often paid over a few seasons, meaning we could be much better off on paper now than we are in cash terms, as we're still paying for players and managers who joined/left 2 or 3 years ago!

My advice - let the club handle it; and cross our fingers that the current lot are better at this than the last lot!!

 

UTV

[blandy]

10 hours ago, GENTLEMAN said:

Anyway back to Villa. He reasons that there will be a hole of approx 40 million with 18/19 season due loss of parachute payment and 3 years in Championship lowering allowed limit. I think the guy is very knowledgable about football finance and certainly knows his stuff. However, as far as I can tell it is based upon a lot of assumptions: For instance that the wage bill remaining roughly the same from 16/17 - 18/19. However from 17/18 to 18/19 alone we have removed Johnstone, Terry, Snodgrass, Samba, Agbonglahor, Hutton (reduced terms), Grabban, Onomah from the wage bill. (£7-10 million/year is my estimate). Also not factored in sale of Gollini. Furthermore, commercial revenue remaining the same in 16/17, despite a relatively successful playoff season, a few more commercial deals and relatively triumphant 18/19 kit launch. 

Just on this, for a spot of clarification, the "hole of 40 million" is not based on an assumption, it is based on cold hard maths. Income from parachute payments falls by 18 million and allowable FFP losses fall by 22 million this season. Reduced TV income plus reduced allowance means a £40 million change which has to be got from somewhere, just to get us to only just meeting FFP rules this season. Reduced wages, player sales, commercial income etc. will need to make up that 40 million gap (and maybe more).

[Cjay]

13 hours ago, Shropshire Lad said:

@Cjay

I don’t know, I’m not sure we are ok to be honest. I guess it’s possibly a number of things -

The situation wasn’t/isn’t as bad as initially made out.

The owners will sell Grealish but are pretty good poker players and will wait until they get the best price possible.

The owners have given the football league assurances that the club will be run better and as they’re new, they get a little extra leeway in putting things right.

The owners know that if they fall foul of FFP, they/the club can handle it - essentially they know it’ll just be a slap on the wrist.

Or maybe it’s a combination of some or all of the above. Or some ingenious loopholes.

I was prepared to see us try and hang on to Grealish/Chester, not make any significant purchases and fudge the finances somewhere, show willing somehow. Not a well thought out plan, but it’s what I was thinking may happen.

I hadn’t anticipated us being linked with players of any significant value, so the rumours over the last couple of days have surprised me. I can only assume that Grealish will be sold to keep us in line. If he doesn’t and we still make these purchases, I’ll be completely at a loss as to what’s going on. 

I assume as you say Grealish will go.

Watched the game last night when he went off, something about his reaction, didnt look like the usual reaction, bit more emotional. 

Maybe thats all that it takes, that fills whatever gap there is, the owners fixed the original problem and because they are new as you say they will get some leeway. 

[TheStagMan]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

Just on this, for a spot of clarification, the "hole of 40 million" is not based on an assumption, it is based on cold hard maths. Income from parachute payments falls by 18 million and allowable FFP losses fall by 22 million this season. Reduced TV income plus reduced allowance means a £40 million change which has to be got from somewhere, just to get us to only just meeting FFP rules this season. Reduced wages, player sales, commercial income etc. will need to make up that 40 million gap (and maybe more).

In which case we will have already cut back on the costs - Gabby, Terry and Snodders will have been on high wages, also several others have either left or gone back to their parent clubs. It is perfectly possible that Terry's wages could fund 4-5 of the loans/younger players we are now looking at. Together with some additional sponsorship deals, and some creative accounting from the new owners, i think that £40m could be plugged very nicely. 

[Cjay]

11 hours ago, GENTLEMAN said:

My understanding, which is still quite foetal. In a nutshell,  I personally I think the £40 million is a worst case scenario, truth be told nobody apart from those privy to the numbers at the club know. All estimates are just that, based upon a number of assumptions. 

I'm a novice but I was going to read more about FFP, football finance, and Villa in particular and put together more robust estimates, as it quite interests me, but I'm 2 weeks from submitting my thesis, so I am fully busy with that and don't need any more evils of procrastination. I think I will return to the matter in two weeks or so . However, my musings so far:

The £40 million figure comes from the Swiss Ramble blog. He conducted it after the playoff final (I think), it is an estimate based on 16/17 accounts but is based upon a number of presuppositions.

He estimates that for 17/18 season we are within the FFP limit, largely due to parachute payment and more leeway from premier league season; tests appear to be run on 3 year basis, 2 years previous accounts and estimates for the current year in March (35m/season permitted Prem & 13m/season permitted Champ). *On a side note, I think this is why teams like Derby and Forrest are spending more this season after a couple of lean years. I'd reason you will see much of this cyclic spending in the hope of getting promotion.

Anyway back to Villa. He reasons that there will be a hole of approx 40 million with 18/19 season due loss of parachute payment and 3 years in Championship lowering allowed limit. I think the guy is very knowledgable about football finance and certainly knows his stuff. However, as far as I can tell it is based upon a lot of assumptions: For instance that the wage bill remaining roughly the same from 16/17 - 18/19. However from 17/18 to 18/19 alone we have removed Johnstone, Terry, Snodgrass, Samba, Agbonglahor, Hutton (reduced terms), Grabban, Onomah from the wage bill. (£7-10 million/year is my estimate). Also not factored in sale of Gollini. Furthermore, commercial revenue remaining the same in 16/17, despite a relatively successful playoff season, a few more commercial deals and relatively triumphant 18/19 kit launch. Moreover, clubs are becoming much more savvy with how they present their accounts, which might not be producing more net profit in real terms but profit that satisfies FFP. I think if anyone can get someone to work on this particular dark art then its Sawiris/Edens. 

Regards FFP test below are quotes (thanks @blandy ) from (Mike Thornton Essay), and the new tests are not as black and white as before (the ones Leeds and QPR failed): 

Furthermore according to the linked essay, there are 3 tests: 

 

Leading to Test 2:

I think this is key, there appears to be leeway for prudent planning. I think we fell foul of test 2 in March 17/18 season and were placed under a 'soft' embargo until the funding and financial plan was sorted and shown to the EFL, which was then lifted. This is also probably where Birmingham City failed, but perhaps couldn't offer such assurances and their hierarchy proceeded to bury heads and as such have and will receive sanctions. 

Villa didn't fail this test for 17/18 season, as no referral to disciplinary committee (like Birmingham City). However, consider that we had extra leeway due to year in premier league and also extra parachute money for that season compared to this.

That being said, I am optimistic for a number of reasons:

1. The EFL were satisfied with the provisions and planing that Sawiris/Edens purposed to lift the soft embargo.

2. I see the FFP regulations not as a way to punish or limit teams, like many others see them, rather they are to promote prudent, considered and secure planning. I think they're in place to prevent reckless unsecured spending not all spending, the EFL still wants clubs to be competitive. I truly believe there is leeway for negotiation, provided discussions are Franke and information is forthcoming. I don't believe they're perfect but I think they're an improvement on the 1st iteration. 

3. Given our stance on Grealish and player sales in general (disclaimer: could be negotiations, or a reassess in January situation), FFP appears to be not as serious as could be. Moreover, circumstantial evidence also arrives from Xia. I think FFP was a convenient smoke screen from him, along with 'impossible to get my money out of China now' line. My opinion is his Villa project was a calculated risk/reward strategy, raise capital to fund for 3 years within that timeframe achieve promotion and receive payout. The FFP drum was banged louder as we reached the 3 year deadline, until a crescendo of 'Chinese government blocking overseas investments' following the failure in PO final. Disclaimer: This is not fact, just my opinion and to counter that I realise that the 3 year deadline also coincides with no parachute payments and no premier league allowed limit, meaning that FFP could well be a big problem. *

 *This is not to say that I think FFP is not a problem, rather it is not as big as problem as first feared and that Sawiris/Edens have the business acumen and prudent sustainable plans to tackle it whilst Villa remain promotion competitors.

Thanks very much for that.

 

Didnt almost all  of that (id read somewhere it was different to the one we failed). 

Lot of what you say makes sense, if i could like i would lol.

It does seem a very complicated system, a little overly complicated and if you have a very good financial adviser you could probably squirm and fiddle your way round it in all but the most extreme cases. 

Dont know much about your previous owner, your new owners seem a different level of businessmen, one seems to have a degree in Economics the other in Business and finance, couldnt ask for better in your situation. Then there is obviously the funding they have, but the contacts to, the people they both must know, forensic accountants, financial advisers, top lawyers etc, all will help in the FFP stakes. 

Think the system needs looking at imo, its overly complicated go back to the old system, black and white, there it is. This one just confuses people and doesnt really seem to work imo. 

Thanks for the excellent response, least i kind of understand it better now. (id tried reading Mike's stuff to, far to clever for me) 

[GENTLEMAN]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Just on this, for a spot of clarification, the "hole of 40 million" is not based on an assumption, it is based on cold hard maths. Income from parachute payments falls by 18 million and allowable FFP losses fall by 22 million this season. Reduced TV income plus reduced allowance means a £40 million change which has to be got from somewhere, just to get us to only just meeting FFP rules this season. Reduced wages, player sales, commercial income etc. will need to make up that 40 million gap (and maybe more).

Yes, thats a much more concise reading of the situation. The unknown comes from whether the cost cutting, attempts at increased revenue and or 'creative accountancy' will be enough to bring us in line with FFP. I for one hope that the owner's plans are prudent and sustainable, with constant Franke dialogue with the EFL to ensure that everything is within regulation. FWIW I think given the size of Villa we should be able to adhere to FFP and be competitive. 

Edited August 7, 2018 by GENTLEMAN

[GENTLEMAN]

38 minutes ago, Cjay said:

Thanks very much for that.

 

Didnt almost all  of that (id read somewhere it was different to the one we failed). 

Lot of what you say makes sense, if i could like i would lol.

It does seem a very complicated system, a little overly complicated and if you have a very good financial adviser you could probably squirm and fiddle your way round it in all but the most extreme cases. 

Dont know much about your previous owner, your new owners seem a different level of businessmen, one seems to have a degree in Economics the other in Business and finance, couldnt ask for better in your situation. Then there is obviously the funding they have, but the contacts to, the people they both must know, forensic accountants, financial advisers, top lawyers etc, all will help in the FFP stakes. 

Think the system needs looking at imo, its overly complicated go back to the old system, black and white, there it is. This one just confuses people and doesnt really seem to work imo. 

Thanks for the excellent response, least i kind of understand it better now. (id tried reading Mike's stuff to, far to clever for me) 

Yeah it quite complex but think finance and football is complex also. The thing is teams like Rotherham or Birmingham City  cannot compete with clubs the size of Villa or Leeds with or without FFP regulation. Interestingly Derby County owner, Melvyn Morris, agrees with you that it too complex, he believes that a simple fail or pass system based on profit/loss and a universally set wage budget those that adhere to it get an extra 5 points at the end of the season.

[ViewFromT2]

8 minutes ago, GENTLEMAN said:

Yeah it quite complex but think finance and football is complex also. The thing is teams like Rotherham or Birmingham City  cannot compete with clubs the size of Villa or Leeds with or without FFP regulation. Interestingly Derby County owner, Melvyn Morris, agrees with you that it too complex, he believes that a simple fail or pass system based on profit/loss and a universally set wage budget those that adhere to it get an extra 5 points at the end of the season.

I saw that last night...what a buffoon!

I'd go hell for leather, spend as much as necessary to win the league by 10pts....let everyone else get their bonus 5, and wave as we leave them behind!

 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, GENTLEMAN said:

Yes, thats a much more concise reading of the situation. The unknown comes from whether the cost cutting, attempts at increased revenue and or 'creative accountancy' will be enough to bring us in line with FFP. I for one hope that the owners plans are prudent and sustainable, with constant Franke dialogue with the EFL to ensure that everything is within regulation. FWIW I think given the size of Villa I think we should be able to adhere to FFP and be competitive. 

I hope so. I'm concerned, though, that last season we met the required figure in no small part due to a net income from transfers of around 18 million quid and even so we apparently only just met the limit. Further to that as well, the losing 4 to 5 million quid per month situation (48-60 million a year) would seem to be something of an issue. It's good that the new owners have wealth and funds etc. but I suspect there's a long way to go to sort out both FFP and the finances generally. The club's not been well run for a very long time - from famine to feast and back again, really.

[HanoiVillan]

Sooooooo . . . how exactly are we planning to get away with this?

[ciggiesnbeer]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sooooooo . . . how exactly are we planning to get away with this?

By any bending or ignoring the joke that is FFP as needed. Same as every other big club. I m happy our new owners have realized this day 1. Good for them. 

[Jareth]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sooooooo . . . how exactly are we planning to get away with this?

Sell Grealish in Jan for 50 mill.

[sidcow]

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sooooooo . . . how exactly are we planning to get away with this?

By abiding by whatever our filthy rich owners agreed with the EFL to convince them we have the finances to continue making The Championship an excellent league during the coming season as per our recent meeting with them.