villabromsgrove Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 1 hour ago, blandy said: 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. I agree in general with what you say blandy. Your speed limit analogy set me thinking though. Autobahns in Germany have a general speed limit of 130 kph (80 mph), however there are autobahns which have no speed limit. The accident rate statistics for both limited and unlimited stretches of autobahn have been very similar over many years. If you have a Lamborghini that can do 321 kph (200mph), you can legally do it. If you have a Dacia Duster diesel then your top speed will be governed to 160 kph (100 mph) because that's its flat out top speed. If FFP were simplified to govern expenditure by restricting borrowing against the club and it's assets, it would still allow rich owners to spend their own personal audited wealth, while effectively blocking the highly damaging actions of 'chancers' like our last owner. Concluding the speed limit analogy, (if you remove any collateral damage) in the event of a crash the car is insured and will be replaced, it's the driver that may not be so lucky and it's he who takes the hit. The Premier League needs to be unlimited so that clubs with new owners who are genuine wealthy can challenge the cosily protected top six. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, blandy said: 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. The analogy doesnt apply as far as I can see. Speed limits are laws set around an important issue by actual law makers duly elected by the people to craft laws. Nobody's lives (or clubs )are being saved by FFP only distracted by or hurt. FFP is an invention by football bureaucrats to try and direct a business sectors market forces by wishes and pixie dust. It was always doomed to fail. If you want a sense of just how ludicrous it is consider applying the "you cant invest in your business to grow market share or take risks" to other businesses. Its a bit daft to say the least. They may as well have given points deductions and fines for teams who dont win more than 20% of their games each season. It would be just as absurd. As long as the assets of a business are operating in a sector where the prices are determined by the market then invented little rules FFP will never work. Logically they cant work. If FFP has a purpose any more it is to contain spending and investment in football. if we want that (I dont) then the better way is to go and copy an American sports corporate socialist system of no relegation, add drafts and salary caps etc. Thats a model that demonstrably can work if we really want to limit the money in football, but again, I dont. Edited July 3, 2019 by ciggiesnbeer 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) The Premier league are apparently looking at the Sale of VP. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49600851 Quote Aston Villa's sale of Villa Park to the club's owners is to be scrutinised by the Premier League, to establish whether it may have breached financial fair play rules. The stadium was sold in May for £56.7m to owners Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens via NSWE Stadium Ltd, a company controlled by the two billionaires. The deal helped Villa comply with the EFL's profit and sustainability rules. Villa, promoted to the top flight in May, insist any such review is standard practice, and part of the normal assessments that all clubs face. Edited September 5, 2019 by LakotaDakota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 I guess we should have used a front company like Etihad or Sports Direct to buy our stadium to avoid this investigation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 22 minutes ago, Keyblade said: I guess we should have used a front company like Etihad or Sports Direct to buy our stadium to avoid this investigation. Too true. As usual it's not a case of what's been done it's who's doing it. Man City can artificially pump cash in under the umbrella of "sponsorship funds" whenever there is a shortfall and no-one bats an eye but a club dares to go for the draw bridge which has been pulled up; via legal, albeit creative, means and it's an apparent disgrace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Considering our CEO was on the panel for creating the rulings that surround FFP I doubt very much he would fall foul of his own work. Nothing to see here for me, All part of a process. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 A 2 year old could see that we did it to get around ffp rules so that isn't really the question. I guess the one thing that could potentially hurt us in any sort of investigation is the price, If Derby sold their ground to themselves for 80 million and the cost of building a new stadium is rapidly heading towards a billion then the 56 million paid would massively undervalue VP and trying to explain that away may not be quite so easy. The EFL have commissioned independent valuations of Derby, Sheff Weds & Readings stadiums to see if the prices paid are in any way realistic. There is a bit more to the story & how it is being handled by the efl on skys website https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/11802891/derby-county-defend-80m-pride-park-as-efl-initiate-independent-valuation-of-stadium Quote Derby County have defended their £80m valuation of Pride Park in the wake of an independent investigation initiated by the English Football League. The EFL has commissioned valuations of the Rams' home ground as well as Sheffield Wednesday's Hillsborough and Reading's Madejski Stadium as part of the Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) process. Derby have told Sky Sports News they conducted their own independent commercial valuation of Pride Park before selling it to another of owner Mel Morris's companies - a move that has been met with criticism from other Championship clubs. FWIW i imagine the clubs that have already done it will end up getting a fine of some sort and anyone else will be banned from doing it in future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 3 hours ago, LakotaDakota said: The Premier league are apparently looking at the Sale of VP. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49600851 "Earlier this summer, it was reported that some Premier League clubs wanted the apparent loophole closed." If loophole exists that needs closing what have we done wrong? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenjiOgiwara Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 On 03/07/2019 at 11:52, blandy said: 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. I normally agree with everything you say, so I assume I've misunderstood you here, but to me it's an obvious earner to established clubs and a kick in the teeth to those worse off. For your analogy to work you have to add the fact it's a set race with different cars where the engine size allowed is related to your financial position. Sorry if I didn't grasp it entirely. Lots of gin tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 9 hours ago, Kiwivillan said: "Earlier this summer, it was reported that some Premier League clubs wanted the apparent loophole closed." If loophole exists that needs closing what have we done wrong? The worst thing about that is that it screams "we're in the top league and we don't want anyone else to join it". FFP needs totally scrapping as it doesn't serve the purpose for which it was created (see Bury for the most recent example), and in fact ensures teams cannot break the monopoly 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 11 hours ago, LakotaDakota said: I guess the one thing that could potentially hurt us in any sort of investigation is the price... Assuming we got the valuations carried out by an RICS Chartered Surveyor (which we definitely would have), then if the stadium was found to be overvalued and there was a legal implication it is the surveyor that would be liable to be sued. All surveyors are required to have appropriate levels of PII for the types and magnitude of valuations they work on so their insurance would pay out. Seeing as it suggests the club had 3 valuations I'd be amazed if they didn't go relatively conservative on the value. Also the sale price to me seems reasonable for a land value and cost to rebuild at the current condition, which is how this would be valued. I still don't see they can do anything, I think they'll just end up closing the loophole. Derby is an interesting one at ~£80m, but it could just be that everyone else was cautious and they were bullish when determining the sale price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 FYI, the consequences are pretty severe for surveyors involved in this type of fraud so can't see any willing to 'do a deal' with the club. At a minimum they'd lose their RICS status and no longer be able to work in the industry; worst case, you get prosecuted. https://www.egi.co.uk/news/in-depth-ian-mcgarry-fraud-case/ Quote On Tuesday the five-year investigation into a £49m mortgage fraud culminated in the imprisonment of chartered surveyor Ian Mark McGarry for seven years. At the outset of the hearing the prosecution counsel detailed McGarry’s involvement in the fraud which led to him knowingly providing Saghir Afzal and his brother Nisar with false valuations based on fictitious leases. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 (edited) I just hope Kevin Friend is not on the investigative committee for FFP......No reason he should be, just losing faith in fair play and folk having a pop at us. Edited September 6, 2019 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted September 6, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2019 (edited) Does anyone else get the feeling after this and the Kevin Friend debacle that we’re not welcome back in the Premier? It kind of feels like we gatecrashed a celebrity wedding, only for a spiteful usher to lie and say that we p*ssed in the chocolate fountain to get us kicked out. Kind of makes me want to p*ss in their chocolate fountain. Edited September 6, 2019 by HKP90 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 6, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 6, 2019 18 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said: I normally agree with everything you say, so I assume I've misunderstood you here, but to me it's an obvious earner to established clubs and a kick in the teeth to those worse off. For your analogy to work you have to add the fact it's a set race with different cars where the engine size allowed is related to your financial position. My analogy isn't perfect, I accept that. I think when I wrote that, I was trying to express that a set of rules on how much a club can spend are not a means of earning money (as had been claimed). A limit on spending is just that. I d agree with your implied point that it helps cement (in the Premier league) the richest clubs (those with the extra Euro TV income) in place, because it (broadly) says "you can't spend more than you earn, but if you earn more, you can spend it" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 14 hours ago, TRO said: I just hope Kevin Friend is not on the investigative committee for FFP......No reason he should be, just losing faith in fair play and folk having a pop at us. Wouldn't surprise you if it's just a smoke screen and set up FFP as a pawn to divert the flack away from incompetent referees and misuse of VAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 22 hours ago, HKP90 said: Does anyone else get the feeling after this and the Kevin Friend debacle that we’re not welcome back in the Premier? No 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted September 7, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 7, 2019 3 hours ago, mikeyp102 said: No Ok. Terse. I like it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveAV1 Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, HKP90 said: Ok. Terse. I like it. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, HKP90 said: Ok. Terse. I like it. Sorry didn’t mean to be rude. I just think that the whole “woe is me”, “no one likes Aston Villa” etc approach isn’t great (and I’ve done it myself in the past). Why would anyone care with us being back in the premier league. Kevin Friend is a useless referee, more interested in making a name of himself than being a good referee. As for the stadium sale review, it says they do it to all clubs. It makes sense to review it from a premier league point of view. Luckily we have Purslow who made the rules and knows the loop holes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts