Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said:

Interesting that we still had to ‘sell’ the stadium despite being promoted. Makes me nervous if we get relegated next year as this is a trick you can only pull once. That being said I doubt the new owners would pull such a reckless gamble like Xia did and back us into a corner again with FFP. 

If you look at the timeline the stadium was "sold" on the 21st May, the play off final was the 27th May, so the "sale" took place before we got promoted.

I think this loophole Stadium transfer) will be closed very soon by the EFL, so it was probably a now or never scenario. It makes good accounting sense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

If you look at the timeline the stadium was "sold" on the 21st May, the play off final was the 27th May, so the "sale" took place before we got promoted.

I think this loophole Stadium transfer) will be closed very soon by the EFL, so it was probably a now or never scenario. It makes good accounting sense.

Yeah I bet the next version of the rules will state that assets have to be sold to a verified third party in order to realise a profit or some such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Excellent news. A nice clean dodge of the failed FFP racket.

Hopefully FFP will be tossed in the trash can where is belongs soon enough and football can stop with all these distractions.

👍👍👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

If you look at the timeline the stadium was "sold" on the 21st May, the play off final was the 27th May, so the "sale" took place before we got promoted.

I think this loophole Stadium transfer) will be closed very soon by the EFL, so it was probably a now or never scenario. It makes good accounting sense.

Agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the Premier League are looking into whether we sold VP for a fair market price basically. 

According to Yorkshire Dave on Twitter it’s nothing to worry about and just a purposefully inflammatory article. Provided we had VP valued it should all be above board and fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve read it’s more of an investigation into the £56m valuation, than the use of the loophole.

Surely no-one could argue that Villa Park isn’t worth £56m.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob182 said:

I’ve read it’s more of an investigation into the £56m valuation, than the use of the loophole.

Surely no-one could argue that Villa Park isn’t worth £56m.

Exactly. It’s a nothing article just aimed at getting us worried. It all should stack up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the potential of HS2 driving up the housing market in the local area, if anything we under valued it ;)

but seriously brum is experiencing the highest urban land value growth in the country, they should easily be able to make an argument that the land is worth a hell of a lot let alone the ground as an asset, its sponsorship / marketing value etc

the investigation is nothing to see here but the interesting thing is whether or not part of justifying the value means they have to reveal what their plans for the area are

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I’ve read it’s more of an investigation into the £56m valuation, than the use of the loophole.

Surely no-one could argue that Villa Park isn’t worth £56m.

Why ? - its in the armpit of the earth - needs a facelift at the very least - and IMO has no development potential.

It looks to me like the planning application - was to give credence to the development of hotel etc on VP - IMO the Hotel will never happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I’ve read it’s more of an investigation into the £56m valuation, than the use of the loophole.

Surely no-one could argue that Villa Park isn’t worth £56m.

Pride Park is worth £80m apparently. Nothing to see here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're investigating the valuation of the stadium, I don't think their concern will be that they paid too much, rather that they paid too little. Apparently the lower the valuation of the stadium, the less it will cost us to it back which will in turn help with FFP limits, so of course they're going to value it for as low a fee as possible, and I guess the Premier league might view that as cheating somehow, but probably nothing will come of it.

Edited by useless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby sold Pride Park for £80m to cover FFP. 33k seater and you'd imagine less potential than Villa Park to prove the value and without the planning permission to grow value etc.

Villa Park at 43k and £56m is going to have no problem whatsoever against that backdrop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, useless said:

If they're investigating the valuation of the stadium, I don't think their concern will be that they paid too much, rather that they paid too little. Apparently the lower the cost, the less it will cost us to rent back Villa Park, so of course they're going to value it for as low a fee as possible, and I guess the Premier league might view that as cheating somehow, but probably nothing will come of it.

Even if they bought it for £1bn they can charge whatever they want for the rent. Common sense says they would charge more but in theory they are allowed to charge whatever they want (high or low) regardless of cost of the asset. 

This is definitely to see if it's overvalued or we've broken a rule (it's also probably routine and nothing to worry about)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure they can't charge whatever they want for rent, for FFP purposes it has to be relative to the value of the stadium.

Edited by useless
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, hippo said:

Why ? - its in the armpit of the earth - needs a facelift at the very least - and IMO has no development potential.

It looks to me like the planning application - was to give credence to the development of hotel etc on VP - IMO the Hotel will never happen.

See @villa4europe‘s post above yours. Even though the area the ground is in is pretty run down, Birmingham is still an area on the up. That’s just talking about the land. On top of that there’s the value of the stadium. It may as well be a listed building, it’s that historically important (no bias here, I promise :lol: )

Edited by Rob182
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob182 said:

I’ve read it’s more of an investigation into the £56m valuation, than the use of the loophole.

Surely no-one could argue that Villa Park isn’t worth £56m.

It's not an investigation. We handed over our accounts last weekend as we're required to do and this is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Obviously this clickbait will be reported worldwide and I'm already dreading the annoying guy in the office saying "Did you see..." like he did this morning with the McGinn rubbish

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â