Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, Lord Willard said:

If all clubs are under pressure, maybe more sensible transfer fees and player salaries would help everyone out?

It does seem there is a smaller and smaller pool of clubs that could spend the kind of money it would take to buy Doug or Emi.  Well, more have owners wealthy enough, just the rules are starting to bite and will stop them, which is the daft thing.

Selling the naming rights to Villa Park does seem like an attractive money grab right now.  You'd think we could get some profit for Cash, maybe Digne, get rid of Coutinho's wage, sell a few more young lads, the Adidas deal, hopefully Champions League income.  I'm not sure what all that would add up to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how our wage bill increased by 57 million in the span of 1 year?

Like I get we signed Kamara, Digne, Coutinho and we probably had to pay some European bonuses. By 57 million? That's crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

I just don't understand how our wage bill increased by 57 million in the span of 1 year?

Like I get we signed Kamara, Digne, Coutinho and we probably had to pay some European bonuses. By 57 million? That's crazy. 

There were new deals for Luiz and Martinez as well, plus Gerrard and his motley crew of backroom morons were probably on significantly more than Dean Smith and his team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MachoFantastico said:

Considering that both owners run successful businesses, it baffles me as to how they can run a club at such a loss. Sadly we'll likely see one or two big exits in the summer, I suspect Luiz will be a certain exit. 

The value of the club has risen from £40m to around £500m (based on the Atairos deal).  They've made a huge paper profit on their investment and the club's assets more than cover any accounting losses.  I think that if anything the statement supports previous claims that we will not have to sell any major players this summer to meet our FFP commitments.  If sales happen it will be to fund incoming transfers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, randy_69 said:

It does look as though they are confident we haven’t breached up to end of 2022/23. What we don’t know about is the current year for the next set of calculations. So if we basically broke even in 2021/22, and we have allowed losses of 90m plus on 2022/23, then that means we can’t have any more than around 15 million allowable losses this year (2023/24). Whether we need to sell quickly in June (with the extended accountancy period) to make that figure is the question?

But as a previous poster mentioned, would we really have signed Rogers in January if this was a possibility???

The club have already said that the accounting period is to bring the accounting year in line with existing contracts.  I suspect that means that Adidas will now fall into this year's accounts and will be a considerable increase on the revenue from Castore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we’re are operating right on the limit of FFP then I think that is a good thing really. How else can we realistically compete with the big six clubs but to max out our allowable investment allowance, which is still much less than theirs in real terms. Can’t lose sight of the fact that we have still spent less than the other top clubs, the only difference is we have funded it more so by ‘losses’ (aka owner investment) whereas they have funded it more via official noodle partnerships etc.

Is one more noble than the other assuming we are both within FFP? And considering that City are largely funded through sham UAE sponsorships? Just hope we have enough ceiling to keep our best players - Gerrards reign of terror won’t have helped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if already explained but how does losing £156M over the 3 year period when you can only lose £105M see us compliant with the PSR rules. Is it because of allowed COVID losses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, villan95 said:

Apologies if already explained but how does losing £156M over the 3 year period when you can only lose £105M see us compliant with the PSR rules. Is it because of allowed COVID losses?

Someone can correct me/add some detail but not all cost/losses are taken into account for PSR calcs 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MSvillain said:

Someone can correct me/add some detail but not all cost/losses are taken into account for PSR calcs 

Yeah I had seen this but would it really account for over £50M of the losses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, villan95 said:

Yeah I had seen this but would it really account for over £50M of the losses?

We will have to wait for the full accounts to be published but I trust the people in charge

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

Actually I think I've figured out we lost so much in that period. Normally this wouldn't make sense but they said in the FAB meeting that they changed the accounting period to the end of June to line up with expiring contracts such as sponsors.

So because of this we have an extra month on the accounting period and that month will likely be when things like loyalty bonuses, amortised transfer fees and various other annual costs are added as such we are essentially double counting them for this period. As presumably this accounting period is June 1st 2022-June 30th 2023. 

No. These accounts run to end of May 23.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jbvilla909 said:

We wouldn't have spent anything in Jan of we couldn't. I think we'll sell Emi in the summer while his stock is high, probably Dougie too.  Would see around £100m not that I want them sold but, I think it'll be necessary. 

Why would we do that when our losses are within our strategic plan and within FFP rules? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MSvillain said:

Someone can correct me/add some detail but not all cost/losses are taken into account for PSR calcs 

Correct. Roughly £20-25M added back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â