The AVFC FFP thread

[AshVilla]

32 minutes ago, penguin said:

Hopefully Traore gets sold for silly money and we have a meaty sell on clause.

Apparently Boro quoted 30 mill then suddenly halfed the asking price to 15 mill for some reason.

[sidcow]

50 minutes ago, penguin said:

Hopefully Traore gets sold for silly money and we have a meaty sell on clause.

Newcastle also rumoured. I love the smell of a bidding war in the evening. 

He would be a typical Newcastle signing. Exciting sounding but ultimately crap. Should see them relegated again soon. 

[sidcow]

I saw somewhere that we may need to sell Bodymoor Heath. 

What's to stop Tony setting up a property owning company who buy Bodymoor Heath for £20m and then rent it back to the FC for peppercorn rent? 

[TRO]

35 minutes ago, AshVilla said:

Apparently Boro quoted 30 mill then suddenly halfed the asking price to 15 mill for some reason.

Rupee's

[mrjc]

Swiss Ramble (credible twitter account on Football finance) estimates we need to cut costs / raise revenue / fees by around £45m next season to still comply with FFP. 

We don’t know all the moving parts, but the analysis looks sensible for the assumptions made.  That would therefore be around £800k per week that we’d need to save / raise. 

 If that is the case, it makes me think selling Grealish is inevitable (not even sure he’d want to go) - he’s our only materially valuable asset, and even the saving of wages from Terry / Gabby won’t get close enough. 

Really worrying. 

[mykeyb]

Wyness will have some questions to answer, let's hope that his Alexa is still working.

Edited May 29, 2018 by mykeyb
Spelling error

[fightoffyour]

Can we even afford to pay off Bruce?

i mean, it’s an extra 1 year of whatever his salary is on the books, assuming a new manager was paid the same or thereabouts.

Edited May 29, 2018 by fightoffyour

[OutByEaster?]

5 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Can we even afford to pay off Bruce?

And all his staff.

 

[tonyh29]

27 minutes ago, mrjc said:

Swiss Ramble (credible twitter account on Football finance) estimates we need to cut costs / raise revenue / fees by around £45m next season to still comply with FFP. 

We don’t know all the moving parts, but the analysis looks sensible for the assumptions made.  That would therefore be around £800k per week that we’d need to save / raise. 

 If that is the case, it makes me think selling Grealish is inevitable (not even sure he’d want to go) - he’s our only materially valuable asset, and even the saving of wages from Terry / Gabby won’t get close enough. 

Really worrying. 

The same source said they had also seen Scott Hogans contract and it was “eye watering “

Frightening stuff if true 

[tonyh29]

The reports doing the rounds say we balanced the books last season so I don’t know where this £41 m black hole figure is coming from ?

this seaason we get a reduced £16m from the parachute payment and the Amavi transfer money comes in not to mention the fee from Gill ...and Gollini by all accounts  

add the fact we lose the wages for Terry , Snodgrass, Hutton  and Grabban and I don’t know how far off we are breaking even again

Some (more) creative sponsorship deals on shirts and the stadium would see us close .... and I’m sure Taylor has always fancied a career in China and we can get some spurious £25m bid for him  

[terrytini]

19 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The same source said they had also seen Scott Hogans contract and it was “eye watering “

Frightening stuff if true 

I don't see it that way. (The general position, not Hogans contract).

I'm glad we aren't going to be allowed to run up huge debts, and whatever 'new' way we have of doing things can, if done right, be fun in itself.  We should still be a big draw for the next set of players down from the top League, we should still have a good youth set up - maybe even better if they think they are more likely to get a game.

I'm already looking forward to next season, money or none, (I think there will be some), Bruce or not.  Its all part of the fun!!

[terrytini]

8 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

FFP would be a good thing if it was actually fair.

I agree it isn't fair, but on balance I think not running up debts will be good for us. I know there is an argument that if we could spend a lot we might go up and get Sky money but there are no guarantees.

It will have a whole warm satisfying glow of its own when we go up debt free and with a terrific set up.............

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

I saw somewhere that we may need to sell Bodymoor Heath. 

doesnt make sense, not when a) its a sponsorship opportunity and b) theres a chance we may get above market rates for the part that needs to go for HS2

unless of course the HS2 buyout is this summer in which case you could then argue that the inevitable "crisis" resulting in us selling BMH isnt actually that at all

[villaglint]

Seeing as Mendes wasn't involved with Wolves after all I wonder whether he fancies being not involved with us instead. Failing that maybe JT could introduce us to Pini Zahavi as it seems like a pretty good idea to not get involved with someone like that. 

[terrytini]

3 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Seeing as Mendes wasn't involved with Wolves after all I wonder whether he fancies being not involved with us instead. Failing that maybe JT could introduce us to Pini Zahavi as it seems like a pretty good idea to not get involved with someone like that. 

Does it have to be instead ? Cant he be not involved with us both at the same time ?

[mrjc]

17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The reports doing the rounds say we balanced the books last season so I don’t know where this £41 m black hole figure is coming from ?

this seaason we get a reduced £16m from the parachute payment and the Amavi transfer money comes in not to mention the fee from Gill ...and Gollini by all accounts  

add the fact we lose the wages for Terry , Snodgrass, Hutton  and Grabban and I don’t know how far off we are breaking even again

Some (more) creative sponsorship deals on shirts and the stadium would see us close .... and I’m sure Taylor has always fancied a career in China and we can get some spurious £25m bid for him  

We haven't balanced the books, we've simply managed to come in line with the FFP test (which allows you to lose a certain amount each year). 

From the most recent season's accounts (2016/17) we made a loss of £14m, but for the season before we lost something like £80m.  We've been making substantial losses for a while now.

[mrjc]

13 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I agree it isn't fair, but on balance I think not running up debts will be good for us. I know there is an argument that if we could spend a lot we might go up and get Sky money but there are no guarantees.

It will have a whole warm satisfying glow of its own when we go up debt free and with a terrific set up.............

Agreed, the test isn't perfect but I think it at least partly drives the right intention - ie, don't just keep spending money, losing money and causing longer term problems throughout success.  This is becoming an issue for us because we've been mismanaged over a long period of time, and then gambled on a quick return.

[mikeyp102]

So Swiss ramble has come up with £45m, from where? Is it accurate? I just can’t see how we would need that much to comply with ffp 

[mrjc]

28 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

So Swiss ramble has come up with £45m, from where? Is it accurate? I just can’t see how we would need that much to comply with ffp 

He's got some reasonably detailed workings, with assumptions which I think broadly make sense.

There are two main problems though:

1. Our parachute payments drop by the best part of £20m next year.
2. The FFP test is done on profit on a rolling three-year basis.  For every year in the PL, you are allowed to make a loss of £35m, and for every year in the EFL you are allowed to make a loss of £13m.  So this season (when we had 1 x PL year and 2 x EFL years for the test) we were allowed to lose £61m.  Next season, we are only allowed to lose £39m.  So the amount of losses we are allowed fall by £22m.

Given that it looks like we are already close to the limit, and the fact that last season was boosted by an accounting profit on transfers of around £26m (which we can now only realistically match by selling Grealish), it starts to add up.  I may not be explaining it the best as there are a lot of moving parts, but it does make sense.

Looking at it another way - our wage bill is so so so so much higher than others in the division - they're basically saying you can't continue to do that without success.  Maybe harsh (especially as we're dealing with Randy's legacy), but our reality. 

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by mrjc
Correct numbers!

[mikeyp102]

2 minutes ago, mrjc said:

He's got some reasonably detailed workings, with assumptions which I think broadly make sense.

There are two main problems though:

1. Our parachute payments drop by the best part of £20m next year.
2. The FFP test is done on profit on a rolling three-year basis.  For every year in the PL, you are allowed to make a loss of £35m, and for every year in the EFL you are allowed to make a loss of £13m.  So this season (when we had 1 x PL year and 2 x EFL years for the test) we were allowed to lose £51m.  Next season, we are only allowed to lose £39m.  So the amount of losses we are allowed fall by £12m.

Given that it looks like we are already close to the limit, and the fact that last season was boosted by an accounting profit on transfers of around £26m (which we can now only realistically match by selling Grealish), it starts to add up.  I may not be explaining it the best as there are a lot of moving parts, but it does make sense.

Looking at it another way - our wage bill is so so so so much higher than others in the division - they're basically saying you can't continue to do that without success.  Maybe harsh (especially as we're dealing with Randy's legacy), but our reality. 

 

But we haven’t seen the accounts for the second year in the championship, the ones released in March/April were for the previous financial year. 

I’m no accountant, and I’m sure many people have much more of an understanding of it than me. But, for me if we were going to be so close to ffp, by failing to get promotion it would’ve been suicidal to sanction the likes of Terry. Xia is no fool and would’ve known the full implications, he would not want his reputation to be tarnished by allowing the club to be in that position.

Plus we don’t know how much had been given by sponsoring the training ground etc