blandy Posted January 11 Moderator Share Posted January 11 6 hours ago, MaVilla said: when will we get to see the accounts?, so the whizz kids can figure out our FFP situation? March. But you can’t figure out FFP compliance from them. The FFP calculations are not made public in any detail, whereas the accounts are. They are posted here https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03375789/filing-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, blandy said: March. But you can’t figure out FFP compliance from them. The FFP calculations are not made public in any detail, whereas the accounts are. right, so i guess the question is, when will we get to know our FFP situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 7 minutes ago, blandy said: March. But you can’t figure out FFP compliance from them. The FFP calculations are not made public in any detail, whereas the accounts are. They are posted here https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03375789/filing-history Pretty sure you can get close with the accounts no? Swiss ramble and the like have a good go. Some losses/expenditure from the club not being put through as FFP costs would be the only thing you wouldn't know officially. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 11 Moderator Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, MaVilla said: when will we get to know our FFP situation? Slightly later. Because people will look at the accounts and pick out big items and make informed guesses from them. For example amortisation is detailed and transfers in are detailed. So too are wages and turnover and those last 2 are going to become the driving factors for what used to be called FFP, over the coming years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 11 Moderator Share Posted January 11 Just now, Tomaszk said: Pretty sure you can get close with the accounts no? Swiss ramble and the like have a good go. Some losses/expenditure from the club not being put through as FFP costs would be the only thing you wouldn't know officially. Indeed. It’s just that the actual figures aren’t made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Not a great article as it's clear they don't really know how the rules work and they never mentioned the reason FFP is such an issue for top clubs is because of the new stringent UEFA rules that are coming in. Not because of the existing unchanged PSR in the PL Aston Villa and FFP: The Jack Grealish money, creativity and selling academy talent - The Athletic Quote Balancing newfound ambitions and living within their means have increasingly formed part of Aston Villa’s thinking of late. The desire to compete in the Champions League and match head coach Unai Emery’s expectations requires big money but is equally relative to commercial and revenue growth. “The (player) sales have basically been to balance our FFP,” said Monchi, Aston Villa’s president of football operations. “Money does not rain in the Premier League. There are clubs with problems. There are rules and regulations. What we try is to be ambitious from sanity.” Summer 2024 was gearing up to be a dangerous one, based on Premier League profit and sustainability rules — the division’s version of financial fair play (FFP). Villa had been largely covered by the £100million ($127.53m, €116.07m) sale of Jack Grealish in 2021, allowing them to comply with FFP over a three-year period. Knowing the money received from Manchester City for Grealish could not last forever, Villa became mindful of shielding against FFP’s threat, accentuated by the necessity to upgrade their squad in line with Emery’s elevated standards. Action was needed in preparation for this upcoming summer. Largely underpinned by the sale for Grealish, Villa raised £127million via player departures in 2021 and subsequently spent just one million more (£128m) on signings. Of that £128m, £88m was used on three attacking replacements to compensate for the void left by Grealish — Leon Bailey, Emiliano Buendia and Danny Ings. It is important to note those figures do not take into account amortisation, which is when transfer fees are spread over the length of the involved player’s contract. “The Grealish sale allowed them to comply with FFP but allow them to back into the market,” says Kieran Maguire, a football finance lecturer at the University of Liverpool and host of The Price of Football podcast. “They spent £204million in 2021-22, which was more than any other club in the Premier League — the Grealish sale allowed them to do that. It allowed the club to transform itself.” Grealish’s departure came two years after promotion back to the Premier League and at a critical juncture in deciding Villa’s short-term future. “If they hadn’t been promoted in 2019, they could have gone the same way as Derby (who are now in League One, English football’s third tier, having been docked 21 points in 2021 for breaking financial rules),” says Maguire. “The 2019 play-off final (Villa’s 2-1 win over Derby) was without a doubt the most precarious game of football I can think of. Villa lost £69m in 2019 when they went up and then lost £100m in the first year in the Premier League, although that was Covid impacted. In the first two seasons in the Premier League, they lost £138m and would have lost the thick end of £100m in 2022 had it not been for Grealish.” Villa’s uncertain financial state in the Championship would have fallen foul to FFP had they not sold Villa Park back to the owners for £56.7millions. Without selling the stadium and easing cashflow issues, they would have suffered serious ramifications during the promotion-winning 2018-19 campaign. Villa’s then chief executive Christian Purslow was generally accepted to have delivered shrewdly, pre-empting the issue and enabling co-owner Nassef Sawiris, who was new to working in football, time to learn. Financial accounts for the 2021-22 year reported a small profit of £400,000, signalling an improvement on previous significant losses but still as a consequence of Grealish giving breathing space. Revenue fell slightly from £183.6million to £178.4m, largely as a result of finishing 14th in the Premier League under manager Steven Gerrard, three positions lower than the season before. Crucially, Villa’s next set of financial accounts, which ended on June 30, 2023, should see revenue grow following a recent seventh-placed finish and qualifying for the Europa Conference League. Villa have been entering into a bottleneck situation since Emery replaced Gerrard in October 2022, driven by the steep progress made on the pitch. Emery wanted to build a best-in-class mentality, which has needed to be matched across several off-field departments. Senior figures involved in non-related footballing matters have told The Athletic that other aspects are having to play catch-up in mirroring the advancement shown under Emery’s leadership. This is reflected in recruitment, where Emery is not content with signing “second-rate” players for the sake of it. It has meant that staying out of FFP trouble while providing for Emery has been a complex balancing act, exacerbated by the proposals to redevelop and expand Villa Park. While this would provide critical extra revenue in the long term, purse strings would have to be tightened in the immediacy. Rebuilding Villa Park would have required a complete demolition of its North Stand in June this year and the initial plans incorporated a “world-class entertainment venue” known as “Villa Live”. Costs were roughly projected to be around £100million ($125m). Since then, however, inflation has taken hold and, according to sources close to the project who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, costs have risen by tens of millions. “As with all projects, the quicker you do it, the cheaper it is,” said one source involved in the project’s logistical planning. Other problems, such as the lack of transport and on-site parking around the stadium, required further feasibility studies. All of which proved excessive in both cost and in a competitive sense, playing in a temporary three-stand ground threatened to diminish the dominance Emery’s side have established at home. Optically, it would also appear jarring if Villa were missing a stand but playing in the Champions League — Europe’s premium club competition. “It would be a bad idea to tear down one of our stands for two years playing like we are,” said president of business operations, Chris Heck. The desire to placate the short-term targets and manage costs has contributed to the decision to pause the stadium redevelopment. Villa’s recruitment strategy has been influenced in complying with FFP, indicating a gear shift. Last January, there was an unequivocal belief that young midfielder Aaron Ramsey would not be sold. Yet, just a matter of months later, Villa declined Burnley’s opening loan-to-buy offer for Ramsey, changing tactics and instead proving willing to sell several academy graduates. Youri Tielemans’ free-agent signing served as an upgrade to Emery and pushed Ramsey further down the pecking order. Villa noted the 20-year-old was now a player of value and helped to solve the problem of needing to sell a first-team player for big money, due to homegrown players registering as pure bookable profit on the financial books. Ramsey ended up joining Burnley in August in a £14million deal. Ramsey’s departure created a ripple effect for fellow homegrown prospects. Villa then received £18.5million in pure bookable profit for Cameron Archer, who moved to Sheffield United. Jaden Philogene, who had been informed he was part of Emery’s squad this season, left for Hull City of the Championship on deadline day in September for £5m. Rather than loaning out or retaining young players to provide squad depth, Villa now preferred to sell under the proviso of including a buy-back clause in those deals. From a financial perspective, they were able to monitor progress and possibly re-sign the players at a more suitable time, while alleviating short-term FFP fears. Developmentally, the levels Emery expects from his squad are extremely high. This has meant, in some cases, certain players have needed to go elsewhere to play regularly to try to bridge the gap. The buying club would have a greater desire to improve them as they would be properly theirs, as opposed to only being around for one year on loan. A counterpoint to this, however, is whether a young player would be better served in staying at Villa and learning under Emery as opposed to simply getting more minutes on the pitch in another side. In total, Villa raised £33million in sales last summer but spent £80m. That figure does not account for Tielemans, who they didn’t pay a fee for after his Leicester City contract expired but who received a significant signing-on bonus and is now among the squad’s highest earners. The sales of Grealish, last summer’s youngsters and then 18-year-old Carney Chukwuemeka to Chelsea the year before (£20million) have helped to balance the books, as well as removing Philippe Coutinho’s $135,000 a week salary off the wage bill. Coutinho’s departure subsequently set up the loans of Clement Lenglet and Nicolo Zaniolo. Shifting expendable high earners was a key route to deliver on FFP. Coutinho fell into the bracket, as did Lucas Digne, who was attracting interest from sides in Europe and Al Hilal in Saudi Arabia, who knew of Villa’s openness to moving him on. Digne is one of the highest earners at £120,000 a week and although he did not want to leave — as indicated by the left-back changing his shirt number at the start of this season to his preferred No 12 — Villa felt they could recruit a replacement at a cheaper cost. No deal for Digne materialised but he will form part of Villa’s thinking this upcoming summer. Yet the inescapable feeling is that if the club want to continue spending big, they will likely need to move on a first-team player for substantial profit. Douglas Luiz or Boubacar Kamara would generate big money, and Villa may view selling one of those as a conducive method to further ease FFP concerns and free up funds for future purchases. With that said, securing Champions League riches would increase the financial ceiling, accessing money that is ordinarily locked by FFP. Clubs who qualified for this season’s group stage received around £14million (€15.64m), with every win in that six-game first phase worth an extra £2.4m. “The Champions League is transformational,” said Maguire, when speaking to The Athletic last April. “The Champions League would be worth £30million, minimum.” Villa have looked at every way possible to increase revenue streams. This has included adding more hospitality areas around the stadium, controversial sponsorship deals and raising ticket prices — even the value of players’ family boxes went up significantly. Qualifying for the Champions League would aid revenue growth considerably, although it would not solve everything. The club have aimed to generate more money through sponsorship deals and by working with more established partners. The front-of-match-shirt sponsorship with BK8, a betting company, was highly contentious within the fanbase but was by far the best financial deal Villa could get as Purslow tried to secure the highest amount of money to keep them progressing. According to well-placed sources, it was worth 50 per cent more than their next best offer. A lucrative multi-year agreement with kit manufacturer Adidas was struck in the autumn, with Heck tasked with bringing in huge commercial partners. Creativity has been the theme of Villa ensuring they stay in line with FFP. Last summer’s window was regarded as a solid start, selling youngsters for full profit, but other measures are being taken to play catch-up with the top flight’s Champions League clubs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted January 12 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12 Qualifying for the champions league group stage was worth £14m this season. According to that article and Kevin Maguire the champions league would be worth a minimum of £30m. Is the difference of £16m based on tv rights and ticket sales? I’m working on the assumption that the estimated £30m isn’t factoring in any hypothetical £2.4m wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMelvillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Fascinating article - again highlighting the sliding doors moment that promotion was Also, now the dust has settled, it shows that selling jack was critical to our ongoing success and survival. Just didn't seem like it at the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said: Qualifying for the champions league group stage was worth £14m this season. According to that article and Kevin Maguire the champions league would be worth a minimum of £30m. Is the difference of £16m based on tv rights and ticket sales? I’m working on the assumption that the estimated £30m isn’t factoring in any hypothetical £2.4m wins. All sponsorship deals have additional revenue when club is in CL or Europe. Additionally you get money for every point and you get your matchday revenue and the tv rights too are dependent on the clubs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farlz Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Luiz probably the next big sale whenever the time comes to help us through. Pain in the arse FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, Farlz said: Luiz probably the next big sale whenever the time comes to help us through. Pain in the arse FFP. No, only reason to make a big sale is to keep spending big like we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 The thing to remember is if Jack stayed, we wouldn't have needed to spend that much? We tried to moneyball him and replace him with 3 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhan_Zhuang Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Luiz or Kamara (more likely) the next big sale according to some journalist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 12 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, TheMelvillan said: Fascinating article - again highlighting the sliding doors moment that promotion was Also, now the dust has settled, it shows that selling jack was critical to our ongoing success and survival. Just didn't seem like it at the time! I honestly believe the sale was Jack was engineered by the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 5 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: I honestly believe the sale was Jack was engineered by the club The club made out that we were desperately tring to keep him but it's clear now we would have been **** without that sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman22 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I get why we need FFP but it’s also a pain in the hole. So many clubs are struggling, I think I read yesterday that Newcastle are in trouble too and they got to the CL promised land. What’s really frustrating is that the best FFP benefit comes from home grown players but they are the ones the fans want to see succeed. We’ve sold Grealish, Chuk, Archer, Ramsey etc. Even City sold Palmer. Gordon to Newcastle. It will be tough to see Doug or Bouba (or Watkins) go but I guess if the fee is right and he allows us to reinvest it might make sense. Look at what Liverpool did with the Couthino cash they got from Barca. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Herman22 said: I get why we need FFP but it’s also a pain in the hole. So many clubs are struggling, I think I read yesterday that Newcastle are in trouble too and they got to the CL promised land. What’s really frustrating is that the best FFP benefit comes from home grown players but they are the ones the fans want to see succeed. We’ve sold Grealish, Chuk, Archer, Ramsey etc. Even City sold Palmer. Gordon to Newcastle. It will be tough to see Doug or Bouba (or Watkins) go but I guess if the fee is right and he allows us to reinvest it might make sense. Look at what Liverpool did with the Couthino cash they got from Barca. The key is cashing in at the right time, look at Coutinho's career after he left. Liverpool got maximum value, and peak years from Coutinho brfore cashing in. Edited January 12 by duke313 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoVillan1983 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, VillaJ100 said: The thing to remember is if Jack stayed, we wouldn't have needed to spend that much? We tried to moneyball him and replace him with 3 players. No that's the wrong way to think about it: when you sell you get to book that revenue in that year for FFP purposes. But when you buy, you amortize the costs over the length of the contract. So say we were in a big FFP hole, and we sell Jack for 100, and buy 3 players for 100, each on 4 year deals then effectively we've made a gain in that year of 100 - 100/4 = 75 million. And you've magically cleared FFP and delayed the issue. Then we lose 25 million a season for the next three seasons after that (in this simple example). Edited January 12 by ChicagoVillan1983 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I think that one smart bit of business by Purslow was agreeing to the release clause, but it had to be a lump sum, no £5 mil a year for 20 years shit that the likes of Chelsea try and pull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Am I right in thinking then the 18months loan out of Coutihno rather than straight sale was to do with his amortisation costs so we didn’t book a loss against his sale ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts