The AVFC FFP thread

[LoughboroughLion]

Wasps were rumoured to have purchased a 90% stake in Arena Coventry Limited, owner of the Ricoh, in 2014 for £30m. Call that £35m factoring in inflation. Links

The lack of comparable transactions in this space makes the valuation extremely subjective - that being said, Villa Park is worth at least £4bn.  

Edited July 2, 2019 by LoughboroughLion

[sidcow]

19 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Pride Park is in a retail park, the land will be worth more than VP

 

That will be the retail sector where companies are going out of business daily and large retail parks are full of empty units for long periods of time?

Villa Park is in an area of a) housing and b) trading estates of large industrial units.  I am pretty sure a housing developer would love to put up a few hundred homes (which ALWAYS sell)  on the Villa Park plot or 3 or 4 large industrial units which again are always in demand.  I would say our land is probably MORE valuable than a retail park.

Many retail property owners have cancelled planned expansions / new parks because they can't get the rent's they want or even tenants full stop. 

[mottaloo]

At least this "news" is giving all those at the sty a distraction from their own woes and i bet they're grasping every desperate straw 

 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

To call it an 'investigation' suggests some prior belief of wrongdoing, when the reality is this is a perfectly normal part of the process. It's admin.

Pathetic article. Nothing to see here until there is, which there won't be. Not at £56m. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[jacketspuds]

If Dr Tony was still running things I would be worried. The fact that we are bidding £20m for players when we need at least another 7 signings to be competitive fills me with confidence about this, not fear.

[villa4europe]

in other financial fair play rules they have scrapped the 7m cap on annual wage increases in a move that "benefits the whole league"

[Dave-R]

Its no surprise that premier clubs are not pleased with clubs coming up from the chsmpionship who have sold there stadiums. I mean god forbid clubs who pose a threat to these premier clubs who find ways around the silly rules set by the biggest clubs just so they can compete at a higher level, all because they were put in place by the top bunch to keep many other clubs down and out, you just know it all smells off.

Many clubs have owners who can afford to use alot of money to support a rebuild like we're going to have to do, which i think is the issue here. Premier clubs won't like what we're doing as they see the players were starting to bring in and they have a huge problem with it as they thought we'd only be able to spend around 20 million on a squad like old times.

I hope to God we make some of the bigger clubs sweat and tremble because, they will be looking to sink us anyway and this is one way they are trying to do it. I find it very sad that the very rule these clubs helped to put in place and that rule these clubs who themselves have often took the pee out of are now trying to use that against us to try and get us done, contradicting or what.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Just now, Dave-R said:

Its no surprise that premier clubs are not pleased with clubs coming up from the chsmpionship who have sold there stadiums. I mean god forbid clubs who pose a threat to these premier clubs who find ways around the silly rules set by the biggest clubs just so they can compete at a higher level, all because they were put in place by the top bunch to keep many other clubs down and out, you just know it all smells off.

Many clubs have owners who can afford to use alot of money to support a rebuild like we're going to have to do, which i think is the issue here. Premier clubs won't like what we're doing as they see the players were starting to bring in and they have a huge problem with it as they thought we'd only be able to spend around 20 million on a squad like old times.

I hope to God we make some of the bigger clubs sweat and tremble because, they will be looking to sink us anyway and this is one way they are trying to do it. I find it very sad that the very rule these clubs helped to put in place and that rule these clubs who themselves have often took the pee out of are now trying to use that against us to try and get us done, contradicting or what.

I'm fairly sure this bit is just made up. 

[Dave-R]

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I'm fairly sure this bit is just made up. 

I think I know what I just read in an article Doug about prem clubs not being happy with clubs owners selling stadiums to themselves to beat FFP.

Now whether it's true or not is another question but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was true and it would be just another bit of heat we don't need.

Even talk of the premier league investigating us now.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Dave-R

[dont_do_it_doug.]

19 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

I think I know what I just read in an article Doug about prem clubs not being happy with clubs owners selling stadiums to themselves to beat FFP.

Now whether it's true or not is another question but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was true and it would be just another bit of heat we don't need.

Even talk of the premier league investigating us now.

I'm not saying you made it up. I'm saying the story itself is made up. 

Edit - we are not being 'investigated'. That is also made up. They are doing due diligence on the sale as per FFP regulations. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

we are not being 'investigated'. That is also made up. They are doing due diligence on the sale as per FFP regulations

Pretty much this. Under rule E.54

Quote

"The [PL] Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value".

But,

Quote

The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to:

E.55.1.  whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or

E.55.2.  what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

So, they are doing it, it would seem because there's at least an element of uncertainty in the value placed on the ground in the sale, as to whether it was true market value. The quotes are from the PL handbook section on FFP. The handbook can be downloaded as a pdf from that internet thing, for anyone wishing to obtain a powerful non-prescription sedative.

[MickeyC_UTV]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Pretty much this. Under rule E.54

But,

So, they are doing it, it would seem because there's at least an element of uncertainty in the value placed on the ground in the sale, as to whether it was true market value. The quotes are from the PL handbook section on FFP. The handbook can be downloaded as a pdf from that internet thing, for anyone wishing to obtain a powerful non-prescription sedative.

Easy, just get Dion to rock up and do a homes under the hammer type thing, get 2 local (Villa supporting) agents in, do a valuation. Do the few renovations outlined and recommended in the other threads, then invite the agents back to add a few million to their original valuation and say ‘easily worth £1 billion in todays market’ job done...

[villabromsgrove]

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

Pretty much this. Under rule E.54

But,

So, they are doing it, it would seem because there's at least an element of uncertainty in the value placed on the ground in the sale, as to whether it was true market value. The quotes are from the PL handbook section on FFP. The handbook can be downloaded as a pdf from that internet thing, for anyone wishing to obtain a powerful non-prescription sedative.

The Premier League need to get a grip of themselves. 

Leicester turn down bid of £70 million for McGuire .... Palace feel insulted by a bid of £40 million for Zaha as they want far more for him. Spurs spend over £60 million for a player that most of us haven't heard much of .... Hazard sold by Chelsea for £100 million plus .... and Premier League big wigs are trying to determine whether the most Historic stadium in the land, the magnificent home of football, the glorious Villa Park is worth half of one Eden Hazard or less than Ndombele!

Football has become a financial farce.

[MickeyC_UTV]

1 hour ago, MickeyC_UTV said:

Easy, just get Dion to rock up and do a homes under the hammer type thing, get 2 local (Villa supporting) agents in, do a valuation. Do the few renovations outlined and recommended in the other threads, then invite the agents back to add a few million to their original valuation and say ‘easily worth £1 billion in todays market’ job done...

Oh bugger he is in France at the moment for the WWC

[Dave-R]

4 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I'm not saying you made it up. I'm saying the story itself is made up. 

Edit - we are not being 'investigated'. That is also made up. They are doing due diligence on the sale as per FFP regulations. 

Also reading now that a rule in FFP has been dropped, From July 1, adjustments to the regulations has removed a rule keeping a check on wage bill increases.

Means we can now spend bigger which is fantastic news for clubs, must be part due to clubs demanding bigger fees.

[Dave-R]

1 hour ago, villabromsgrove said:

The Premier League need to get a grip of themselves. 

Leicester turn down bid of £70 million for McGuire .... Palace feel insulted by a bid of £40 million for Zaha as they want far more for him. Spurs spend over £60 million for a player that most of us haven't heard much of .... Hazard sold by Chelsea for £100 million plus .... and Premier League big wigs are trying to determine whether the most Historic stadium in the land, the magnificent home of football, the glorious Villa Park is worth half of one Eden Hazard or less than Ndombele!

Football has become a financial farce.

Yes I couldn't agree more, the whinging from these clubs is unreal, it's become a political financial war zone, they need to get a grip.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Pretty much this. Under rule E.54

But,

So, they are doing it, it would seem because there's at least an element of uncertainty in the value placed on the ground in the sale, as to whether it was true market value. The quotes are from the PL handbook section on FFP. The handbook can be downloaded as a pdf from that internet thing, for anyone wishing to obtain a powerful non-prescription sedative.

I imagine given the furore over recent ground sales they probably feel obligated to take a look. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

FFP is simply there as a nice little earner for the clowns who run FFP at this point. 

A failed scheme which now has a sole function to give an extra kick to clubs who are down. Go ask Bolton how much "help" they have received.

Whatever its original motivations were, its just a parasite on football now.

Edited July 2, 2019 by ciggiesnbeer

[Sam-AVFC]

Been meaning to write a little about this for a while and just got round to it. Hopefully of some interest!

For anyone interested in how the stadium was likely valued google “RICS Depreciated Replacement Cost”. The stadium was likely either valued like this or on a profits/loss basis to calculate a rent then a yield applied.

DRC is used to value assets with no market ie fire stations, hospitals etc. It may also have been used to value the asset in the accounts as it calculates the cost of building a modern equivalent (with adjustments made for obsolescence). Land value is then added at the end. 

Profit/loss is used for properties with a market, but with the value likely driven by the use ie pubs, hotels and theme parks. Mostly leisure. Adjustments are made for a ‘standard occupier’ - for example, a Wetherspoons would have the value based on sales adjusted down to reflect they are an exceptional occupier. This would seem like the most sensible approach to valuing it to me.

Considering the rateable value of Villa Park is circa £2.8m and this will be based on actual receipts from around 2015, this suggests a yield of around 5%. Maybe a touch higher than I would have gone, but certainly not unreasonable considering risk for this type of asset.

It’s such a niche area of valuation and with the value seeming reasonable I don’t think any surveyor would be willing to sign off a valuation that results in Villa being punished and opening themselves up to being sued.

TLDR; I’m a commercial property valuer by profession and am not at all concerned by the possibility of us getting punished.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[blandy]

12 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

FFP is simply there as a nice little earner for the clowns who run FFP at this point. 

A failed scheme which now has a sole function to give an extra kick to clubs who are down. Go ask Bolton how much "help" they have received.

Whatever its original motivations were, its just a parasite on football now.

I don't agree with this at all. It's not a "earner" for anyone.

It doesn't kick clubs who are down. It's not there to give "help". It's like motorway speed limits. Motorway speed limits cannot prevent crashes, they cannot "help" drivers. But what they can do is set sensible limits on how fast drivers can go to the benefit of overall road deaths. They can't stop people breaking them, they can't stop individuals behaving recklessly. You or I can argue if they are too high, or too low, or if they're over-enforced, or under-enforced, or whather the penalties are too lenient or high...etc. but FFP, like Speed limits do serve to improve the overall situation, and see fewer clubs/drivers being killed or injured.