The AVFC FFP thread

[John]

3 hours ago, CarryOnVilla said:

I can see they will to help them selves out tho. 
 

what club doesn’t want a little more headroom in spending?

Luton?

[cheltenham_villa]

5 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

We are at risk, hence we asking for extra £30m. However, we can easily generate that £30m by selling a player if other clubs won't agree to the rules change. We won't get any points deducted, we have too many assets we can easily sell to generate that amount.

I certainly cannot see other 13 teams voting for it to help us out though, so we will be selling for profit.

were at risk or we have some money and really want to create some more.

The reality is no one really knows.

[Czarnikjak]

6 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said:

were at risk or we have some money and really want to create some more.

The reality is no one really knows.

No one here really knows, true.

We can only look at the facts available to us (published accounts and the losses they show, extended accounting period to the end of June, proposal for £135m allowed losses) and draw our own conclusions.

I think there is strong evidence to suggest we are at risk, others might disagree.

[ender4]

58 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

No one here really knows, true.

We can only look at the facts available to us (published accounts and the losses they show, extended accounting period to the end of June, proposal for £135m allowed losses) and draw our own conclusions.

I think there is strong evidence to suggest we are at risk, others might disagree.

Yeah there is a lot of little things that point to Villa being extremely close to the limit.  

Another one is the sale of young players with buyback clauses, creating a little bit of a fiddle for FFP.  
 

[cheltenham_villa]

2 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

No one here really knows, true.

We can only look at the facts available to us (published accounts and the losses they show, extended accounting period to the end of June, proposal for £135m allowed losses) and draw our own conclusions.

I think there is strong evidence to suggest we are at risk, others might disagree.

i do agree, i cant see how we are not sailing close to the wind given the published accounts. But the fact that we spent in Jan and didnt aggressively push sales makes me think that its still a manageable situation. I cannot believe the rumours that we need to sell a 30-50m asset this side of June.

 

[allani]

9 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

We are at risk, hence we asking for extra £30m. However, we can easily generate that £30m by selling a player if other clubs won't agree to the rules change. We won't get any points deducted, we have too many assets we can easily sell to generate that amount.

I certainly cannot see other 13 teams voting for it to help us out though, so we will be selling for profit.

What I am intrigued by is that IF we are at risk AND the chances of persuading 13 other teams to vote for the change is low then why would we highlight that we are at risk to all the other clubs in the PL and overseas by calling for this change?  Basically it would alert other clubs to us needing to raise funds urgently and therefore giving them additional bargaining power (or the perception of additional bargaining power).  Which seems like a high price to pay for a small(ish) chance that enough clubs would vote through the change.  It seems like a pretty amateur / desperate ploy.  Which just doesn't seem to square with the way that we are running (or trying to run) the club or the way NSWE run their other businesses.

One narrative that the club have been pushing is that the current FFP rules make it harder for well-run clubs to move to the next level - as supported by us being one of the teams voting against the proposed new rules last week.  It just feels (to me) like this is more about us trying to position ourselves as a key player in this wider debate about the merits / limitations of FFP rather than a last gasp attempt to try and avoid an immediate issue.  I think we're pushing the story that these rules don't stop bad owners but do inhibit what good owners can do in terms of advancing their club.  I think that's a story that we can sell to other teams / owners and try to raise support for challenging the rules to make them "fairer" to clubs in a position similar to us.

However, IF the extra £30m is of immediate interest - then I think it's more about allowing us to sign additional players in the summer rather than having to raise funds to avoid penalties for breaching the rules.

[OutByEaster?]

How does this work for the financial regulations?

We sold him for £18m as a home grown player and booked the lot.

We now have to buy him back for £14m, presumably in the same way as any other signing.

If we sell him again now, it will be against the (amortised) value of that £14m - so we'd need to get more than £14m for him to book it as a profit this summer?

Would we be better trying to loan him to someone like Ipswich or a good Championship side, bank a couple of million and hope he does well enough for us to get the money back?

Do you think there might be a buyer out there at £15m?

I'd hate to think that having made a big profit last season, we've now left ourselves in a position where we have to sell him for a loss this summer.

[MaVilla]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

How does this work for the financial regulations?

We sold him for £18m as a home grown player and booked the lot.

We now have to buy him back for £14m, presumably in the same way as any other signing.

If we sell him again now, it will be against the (amortised) value of that £14m - so we'd need to get more than £14m for him to book it as a profit this summer?

Would we be better trying to loan him to someone like Ipswich or a good Championship side, bank a couple of million and hope he does well enough for us to get the money back?

Do you think there might be a buyer out there at £15m?

I'd hate to think that having made a big profit last season, we've now left ourselves in a position where we have to sell him for a loss this summer.

i thought we sold him for 10m, rising to 18m if they stayed up, but with a mandatory buy back of 8m/10m if they got relegated?

so like a 2m loan if they got relegated? (if it was an 8m buy back).

[MaVilla]

On 27/04/2024 at 22:43, VillaChris said:

I'd personally bring him back and re-integrate him into the squad. Radical I know.

He has good pace from wide positions and no one in our team could actually run after Diaby and Bailey went off so for second halves like tonight he wouldn't have been a bad option at all instead of Duran who's more someone you knock balls up to and barely touched it.

its only radical because he is nowhere near good enough to be part of a squad hopefully aiming for top 4/top 6.

 

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, MaVilla said:

i thought we sold him for 10m, rising to 18m if they stayed up, but with a mandatory buy back of 8m/10m if they got relegated?

so like a 2m loan if they got relegated? (if it was an 8m buy back).

Possibly - I read the figures elsewhere.

It doesn't look like the brightest decision if we're essentially buying Cameron Archer for £14m. 

[MaVilla]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Possibly - I read the figures elsewhere.

It doesn't look like the brightest decision if we're essentially buying Cameron Archer for £14m. 

im pretty sure what i said was right, not exactly sure on the figures, but im sure i have read it a few times and in reputable places.

I agree the 14m buy back thing sounds nuts and i cant believe we would have agreed to it.

The 10m sale, plus 8m if they stay up, or an 8m buy back with us making a 2m profit on it, and the profit is effectively a loan fee from them, makes much more sense.

Obviously, i could be wrong.

either way, i can see him being shipped out on loan again in the summer, or sold (again).

Edited May 4 by MaVilla

[paul514]

There is some right toss on here.

We know what the situation was 1 year ago from the accounts and we can make good guesses from there.

We categorically would not have signed players in January if we had an issue with this seasons compliance.

As for wanting bigger FFP limits, I could go on and on about why a club may want that, it's totally irrelevant though to a club who expects or thinks they may be able to qualify for european competition as their rules are harsher and those clubs have to comply with them.

[T-Dog]

We spend what we waaaaant

WE SPEND WHAT WE WAAAAANT

[useless]

Sheffield United didn't pay £18m, the agreed fee was supposedly £9m plus another £9m if they stay up

But even if we think of it as £18m, they still won't have paid that, as the agreement would be for the transfer to be paid in installments

So our buyback will be a percentage of whatever they gave us for the first installment

The talk on Sheffield United forum, is that they gave us £4.5m and our buyback is for three quarters of that

So it was essetially like a loan, and we might have even made a small profit, which i guess can be seen as like a loan fee

The £14m figure might make a degree of sense, as that's around three quarters of the reported £18m, but it's not taking into account, that they won't have given us that £18m in one go, or even half of it.

[VillaAlex]

We won't know, nobody on an Aston villa forum will know, nobody on a Sheff Utd forum will, it's all speculation. No confirmed facts. We will only have an idea potentially via our accounts. 

[useless]

1 hour ago, useless said:

Sheffield United didn't pay £18m, the agreed fee was supposedly £9m plus another £9m if they stay up

But even if we think of it as £18m, they still won't have paid that, as the agreement would be for the transfer to be paid in installments

So our buyback will be a percentage of whatever they gave us for the first installment

The talk on Sheffield United forum, is that they gave us £4.5m and our buyback is for three quarters of that

So it was essetially like a loan, and we might have even made a small profit, which i guess can be seen as like a loan fee

The £14m figure might make a degree of sense, as that's around three quarters of the reported £18m, but it's not taking into account, that they won't have given us that £18m in one go, or even half of it.

If the £4.5m figures is correct and the seventy-five percent buyback, then we will be paying £3.4m for him

It's pretty much guaranteed that Sheffield United would have been paying for him in installments, don't need 'ITK' or whatever to know that, it's just how transfers work, they will only have given us something like a quarter of the transfer fee, that is the first installment, so it just follows logically that we aren't going to be buying him back for £14m, that would give them around £10m profit

Also their CEO has spokeon on the subject and pretty much confirmed the above 'isn't far away from the truth', although he said he can't go into full details because of confidentiality reasons

[Czarnikjak]

8 hours ago, paul514 said:

There is some right toss on here.

We know what the situation was 1 year ago from the accounts and we can make good guesses from there.

We categorically would not have signed players in January if we had an issue with this seasons compliance.

As for wanting bigger FFP limits, I could go on and on about why a club may want that, it's totally irrelevant though to a club who expects or thinks they may be able to qualify for european competition as their rules are harsher and those clubs have to comply with them.

I see many people making the same argument.

"We cannot be in ffp red zone this season, otherwise we wouldn't buy any players in January"

I don't agree with that, and looking at the numbers involved explains why.

Total sum of wages and amortisation for  all players we bought this January is about £10m per year. Divide it by 2, as they are only on our books for half of this season, and they only adding £5m to this seasons ffp calculation.

If let's say our ffp hole this season was £30m, and the plan is to sell player X in June for £40m, adding extra £5m in January (while buying player X's replacement) doesn't make significant difference to our situation.

Edited May 4 by Czarnikjak

[OutByEaster?]

So in terms of the regulations, what would we have booked as profit on him last summer - if we're able to book the 'agreed' figure rather than the delivered increment then it's a work of genius. Not sure that would be the case though.

In terms of contract, does anyone know how long he'll come back to us carrying? 

If he has a few years left, I guess a loan is more viable whereas if it's only one or two we might need to cash in earlier rather than later.

 

[Czarnikjak]

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in terms of the regulations, what would we have booked as profit on him last summer - if we're able to book the 'agreed' figure rather than the delivered increment then it's a work of genius. Not sure that would be the case though.

In terms of contract, does anyone know how long he'll come back to us carrying? 

If he has a few years left, I guess a loan is more viable whereas if it's only one or two we might need to cash in earlier rather than later.

 

Profit and Loss account (and thus the PSR rules) don't care how you structure the payment installments. Whole value of transaction gets booked immediately (excluding any conditional addons - they only kick in when conditions are met).

Edited May 4 by Czarnikjak

[OutByEaster?]

6 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Profit and Loss account (and thus the PSR rules) don't care how you structure the payment installments. Whole value of transaction gets booked immediately.

So in theory, it's possible that (on paper) we sold him for £18m last summer and are buying him back for £3.4m this summer?

That would be beautiful.