Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

Although I'm not a fan of FFP the fact it is affecting the badly run clubs the most could mean there's unfortunately a place for it. 

Lets say there's no FFP and Xia pumped in another 100m on playing staff and wages. Somehow we again failed to get promoted and xia puts the club up for sale and no longer invests in it. We'd be well and truly shafted and the whole future of the club could become in doubt. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Although I'm not a fan of FFP the fact it is affecting the badly run clubs the most could mean there's unfortunately a place for it. 

Lets say there's no FFP and Xia pumped in another 100m on playing staff and wages. Somehow we again failed to get promoted and xia puts the club up for sale and no longer invests in it. We'd be well and truly shafted and the whole future of the club could become in doubt. 

Agree, but if Xia pumped in 100m as a gift and not loan (dept) it should be ok. But wages must follow some sort of control, as we more than most other clubs knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2018 at 11:21, villa82 said:

Uefa and/or the big clubs might vote for a new FFP 2.0. New rules can start this summer.

If this happen then no club can have more than 25 senior players (chelsea and city have more than 60, but send them on loan).

A club can by players for not more than 100 million euros than they sell players for, during a year.

Sponsorship from owners company can't be more than 30% of total commercial income.

Don't know if the old rules still stand after this. Hope not. 

 

Does this prevent an owner from "gifting" a lump sum into a club?

If not, what does it do? I read it as, say our commercial income is £100m (example only) then we can sponsor ourselves max £30m for the Recon stadium. But then, why not just inject the funds we need instead of such a sponsorship deal.

If a rich owner still can't inject funds as they please, does it really help? Aside from the other 2 rules that prevent mass loan farms and a net loss on transfers limit, which sound sensible to me.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that clubs shouldn't be saddled with unservicable debt. We don't want clubs flying too close to the sun trying to get promotions or European places and then being at risk of being wound up if they don't get there. I'm all for FFP that stops clubs getting into bad debt.

But if an owner wants to inject money into his or her football club, it's moronic that they're not allowed to. It makes it incredibly difficult for a large club to ever really make that step up to giant club status, regardless how deep their owner's pockets are. Chelsea and Man City get in before the glass ceiling and reap all those benefits but other clubs aren't allowed to because of Portsmouth? It's bullshit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

I absolutely agree that clubs shouldn't be saddled with unservicable debt. We don't want clubs flying too close to the sun trying to get promotions or European places and then being at risk of being wound up if they don't get there. I'm all for FFP that stops clubs getting into bad debt.

But if an owner wants to inject money into his or her football club, it's moronic that they're not allowed to. It makes it incredibly difficult for a large club to ever really make that step up to giant club status, regardless how deep their owner's pockets are. Chelsea and Man City get in before the glass ceiling and reap all those benefits but other clubs aren't allowed to because of Portsmouth? It's bullshit.

I think the Malaga story was a big one. That was a very wealthy owner that lost interest because of his construction plans in the area being denied by the government. That is a case that relates more to what could happen to Villa. 

Edit: I honestly think Villa is a means to an end for Xia and Wyness. Yes they need Villa to be successful to meet their goals. But it's not the main target. There is no love for the club or a billionaires ego wanting to be the best. It's a way of progressing development for the city and the income that will generate. 

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

5 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

I absolutely agree that clubs shouldn't be saddled with unservicable debt. We don't want clubs flying too close to the sun trying to get promotions or European places and then being at risk of being wound up if they don't get there. I'm all for FFP that stops clubs getting into bad debt.

But if an owner wants to inject money into his or her football club, it's moronic that they're not allowed to. It makes it incredibly difficult for a large club to ever really make that step up to giant club status, regardless how deep their owner's pockets are. Chelsea and Man City get in before the glass ceiling and reap all those benefits but other clubs aren't allowed to because of Portsmouth? It's bullshit.

I see what you mean, just think it’s a bit more complicated. Say they inject lots of their own cash to fund transfer fees...but then lose interest / walk away / stop injecting cash...at which point the club still has to fund the wages that come about because of those funds spent on transfers. 

I think that’s why there was talk of a ‘fit and proper persons’ - although that’s very tricky too. 

Clearly not a perfect solution, but it’s very difficult to get one imo. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So I was looking into the FFP regulations in the Premier League (this is what new-found optimism does for me!).  It seems as though, simplistically, there aren't specific regulations.  So there are EFL rules, and UEFA rules (hopefully something we need to consider in the coming years), but nothing specific for the Premier League.

It means that if we are able to get up, we are clear, short term at least, of a very big headache - a potential huge swing compared to what would be a disaster if we were to stay down.  We still need to make sure we don't breach this year, as the EFL can then retrospectively punish us (I think), but going forward it lifts a huge burden (as long as we don't spend loads to then go and get relegated again!).

Maybe it's a subtle point, and maybe it's even already known...but to me it makes the financial benefit of promotion even bigger than I had previously realised.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrjc said:

So I was looking into the FFP regulations in the Premier League (this is what new-found optimism does for me!).  It seems as though, simplistically, there aren't specific regulations.  So there are EFL rules, and UEFA rules (hopefully something we need to consider in the coming years), but nothing specific for the Premier League.

I don't think thats correct.

There are 3 versions of FFP:

UEFA FFP (rules set by UEFA)

Premier League FFP (rules agreed by a 14/20 majority vote of Premier League clubs)

EFL FFP (rules set by English FA)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Aston Villa have made a 'significant profit' in managing Financial Play Play and a promotion challenge

Director of football Steve Round reveals recruitment improvements

Steve Round believes Aston Villa have successfully dealt with the constraints of Financial Fair Play by both strengthening Steve Bruce’s squad AND turning over a profit.

Speaking to avfc.co.uk the club’s director of football revealed all three of the transfer windows in which he has been involved have been affected by the spending of the previous regime and relegation from the Premier League.

But the 47-year-old, who joined Villa in September 2016, is confident the recruitment side of the club - much-maligned under the likes of Paddy Riley - is running well, providing Bruce with the players HE wants.

“We have put, pretty-much, a new recruitment team in place. We have some very good expertise in there,” Round told the club website .

READ MORE

Aston Villa: Injury update; Adomah's joy; How a former flop is living; Season ticket update

“We have Tony Coton and Ian Atkins heading that up. They are both massively experienced. They were excellent players in their own right and have a huge pedigree in football.

“Under them, we have a team of scouts. Some have analytical backgrounds, who are wizards on data and are making sure we’re following all the innovative ways of the modern recruitment world.

“We also have some vastly experienced on-the-ground scouts who will go and watch the games and who have a tremendous football knowledge. Tapping into all of that is vitally important.

 

“Once we get down to the final two or three targets, myself and the manager will go and watch them and if we agree with everyone else, the process starts to try and sign them.

“We were restricted by FFP in the three windows I have been involved in. That’s a product of the previous three years and the fact we were relegated so the [television] payments aren’t as great.

“So we had to balance the books. We have made a significant profit and, importantly, we have improved the team.

“I am very pleased with what the recruitment team have delivered in terms of their scouting potential. We have been very smart with the deals we’ve got.”

Round says Bruce has played a pivotal role in adding both youthful exuberance and experienced leadership to the squad.

”Fair play to the manager, too, he’s recognised quite a few of these players at a lot less cost - and who have delivered impressively on the pitch.

“We had to look at the older and younger ends of the market spectrum. We weren’t able to go in and buy at the middle tier.

 

“We have brought in some vastly experienced players - lads like John Terry and Glenn Whelan, who obviously were a lot less cost and then very exciting young players like Josh Onomah and Axel Tuanzebe, who are just starting to forge their career in the game.

“Aston Villa fit the profile for their clubs because they’re playing in such a big arena and environment with a very good team.

“We had to adapt our transfer policy according to the budget we had. That’s no different to anyone else.

“One thing I have found with Aston Villa is because of the size of the club, the history and tradition it holds, it’s not been difficult to persuade players to come here. The name is a big draw.

“The big test will be if we get promoted. There are tiers in the Premier League. But the owner has always said it’s a stage process.

“You cannot go historically from promotion to, for example, sixth in the Premier League straight away.

“You have to step up the ladder incrementally. That’s the plan and aim. It’s incremental rises all the time.

“When I came in, we were third bottom. We are now second. It’s taken almost 18 months to get there.

“It’s making sure we can get this club over the line in terms of getting promoted, that is our sole focus on the field at the moment then we need push on from there.”

 

Looks good according to ound

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ender4 said:

I don't think thats correct.

There are 3 versions of FFP:

UEFA FFP (rules set by UEFA)

Premier League FFP (rules agreed by a 14/20 majority vote of Premier League clubs)

EFL FFP (rules set by English FA)  

Maybe it’s the wording, but their own rules seem to be pretty free-form, rather than specific tests. 

https://www.premierleague.com/news/102374

Quote

In addition to Company Law, the Premier League has its own Rules relating to club finances, accounting and good governance.

The Premier League, Football League and UEFA each has its own regulations governing club finances. The most widely known FFP policies are probably UEFA’s. These pertain to the licensing system for teams who wish to take part in European club competitions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see this venture into the championship and the resultant belt tightening as a bit of a positive....as long as we get up this season obviously. 

Hopefully when we go back up our finances will be in a lot better state.  Hopefully no more of this topping the wages chart crap that has been much maligned over the last decade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Southampton have been struggling recent but prior to this they have been excellent since they got promoted to the premier league. Let's hope the relegation then promotion bounce back as same effect as us.

Let's face it we needed the relegation to get rid of Lerner and rebuild the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some very interesting stuff in those accounts - almost all of which I don't think I understand. 

It does tend to suggest that we made a slight profit on player trading in the summer (which probably makes sense) - it looks like we've reduced our overall losses from £80m in the previous year to £14m in this year and that sounds good - even though it's not immediately clear how we did it - there's a £57m figure floating about which I think Dr T has either given or borrowed to the club (I can't understand which it is but I do realise there's a huge difference between the two things!) and the value of our property seems to have dropped by £30m. 

I'm not an accountant, but the comments and stuff seem to suggest that we're in pretty solid shape at the moment.

Can anyone unbeffudle me on the £57m or the property value drop?

Also, We seem to be a lot of companies:

  • 1874 Developments is our property company - is it active does anyone know? Is its purpose the redevelopment of the ground? Why would we separate that off?
  • Recon Properties is also a property company that seems to be part of Aston Villa - anyone know why on that one?
  • There are three or four things that look like they might be the football club - is that a result of the process of the buying and selling of the club and the way in which Recon did that, or something else I don't understand?

Qualified accountant to aisle number 4 please.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

There's some very interesting stuff in those accounts - almost all of which I don't think I understand. 

It does tend to suggest that we made a slight profit on player trading in the summer (which probably makes sense) - it looks like we've reduced our overall losses from £80m in the previous year to £14m in this year and that sounds good - even though it's not immediately clear how we did it - there's a £57m figure floating about which I think Dr T has either given or borrowed to the club (I can't understand which it is but I do realise there's a huge difference between the two things!) and the value of our property seems to have dropped by £30m. 

I'm not an accountant, but the comments and stuff seem to suggest that we're in pretty solid shape at the moment.

Can anyone unbeffudle me on the £57m or the property value drop?

Also, We seem to be a lot of companies:

  • 1874 Developments is our property company - is it active does anyone know? Is its purpose the redevelopment of the ground? Why would we separate that off?
  • Recon Properties is also a property company that seems to be part of Aston Villa - anyone know why on that one?
  • There are three or four things that look like they might be the football club - is that a result of the process of the buying and selling of the club and the way in which Recon did that, or something else I don't understand?

Qualified accountant to aisle number 4 please.

 

Like you, I have a very, very limited knowledge of them, and just skirt around the edges.

However, I do know its very easy to get suspicious of things in accounts that we don't understand or have not been explained. I am not sure if this is relevant but I suspect the Chinese have a whole different way to us in the west of presenting accounts.

That does not make it iffy.....just different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â