Kbdrum88 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Since FFP seems to say your sponsors have to have value for money could our owners not just buy a 51% stake allowing there owner to keep 49% in a club from a league like cyprus like pafos F.C.. then providing there FA don’t really have an FFP Structure bank roll a £100 million deal for grealish. Then loan him back to villa for free no wages on our books with our owners paying him 60k from there coffers through the Cyprus club, giving them 60k a week to match for the trouble for themselves. Then end of the season sell jack back to villa for £1, give there owner the 51% back, they’ve made 60k a week for **** all, plus give them 5 years of villa coming for pre season friendly and there owner get money for a 51% stake for a season in a club he then gets full ownership for free back. Or keep it and use them to do similar transfers to bypass FairPlay again and to loan and use to get dual citerzenship for promising 15 year old South Americans Edited July 21, 2018 by Kbdrum88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, deamie said: Don't know all the circumstances but AC Milan have just won a court case allowing them to compete in the Europa League next season after being excluded for breaking FFP rules when owned by Chinese owners......would this not be the case for us too? Probably not since we finished 4th in the Championship But these are different FFP rules and wouldn't apply to us either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deamie Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, sne said: Probably not since we finished 4th in the Championship But these are different FFP rules and wouldn't apply to us either way. Of course but we could contest any fine or transfer embargo surely as we have new owners like Milan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 1 minute ago, deamie said: Of course but we could contest any fine or transfer embargo surely as we have new owners like Milan Sure, why not. It's worth a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, hippo said: Don't think FFP is based on the annual accounts though - its a separate statement they have to submit. FFP is a separate annual statement which i think clubs can issue in April May or June, cant find when we submitted 2018 but 2017 was 31st May which would suggest to me they take the year end stuff massage it a little and rebadge it also means we have until the end of May 2019 to get it right either way the point was with the timing we dont have until the transfer window closing in 3 weeks to balance our 2019 books, we have January for player sales, we have 10 months for new revenue streams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted July 21, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, Kbdrum88 said: Since FFP seems to say your sponsors have to have value for money could our owners not just buy a 51% stake allowing there owner to keep 49% in a club from a league like cyprus like pafos F.C.. then providing there FA don’t really have an FFP Structure bank roll a £100 million deal for grealish. Then loan him back to villa for free no wages on our books with our owners paying him 60k from there coffers through the Cyprus club, giving them 60k a week to match for the trouble for themselves. Then end of the season sell jack back to villa for £1, give there owner the 51% back, they’ve made 60k a week for **** all, plus give them 5 years of villa coming for pre season friendly and there owner get money for a 51% stake for a season in a club he then gets full ownership for free back. Or keep it and use them to do similar transfers to bypass FairPlay again and to loan and use to get dual citerzenship for promising 15 year old South Americans I admire the pure deviousness of this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted July 21, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2018 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: As far as I can tell, there's no reason to either write them off or praise them as superhumans yet. However, past failures are certainly an indication that a certain amount of skepticism is not unreasonable. It’s a logical fallacy though isn’t it? Just because person a acts badly, doesn’t mean person b or c also will. I’m not proposing superhuman praise, but perhaps a clean slate is the least they deserve? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 My understanding is that any dodgy sponsorship deals must represent 'market value', as in renaming Villa Park for £100 million a season is out of the question because it would be considered alongside other such deals. Of course, they'd see through it, no other championship club would realistically get such a deal. But that isn't to say that there are no ways of increasing revenue, I am sure there are, but it isn't going to solve our FPP nightmare overnight. My sense is that we've got to ride this out, and my hope is that we do it properly. There's no way around FFP, it's a ball ache and we'll always have to live within the ridiculous limitations it's set. Afterall, if the idea is to prevent clubs from going bust, then it clearly doesn't work because we almost went bust. Secondly, now that it appears that we're unlikely to go bust, we're still going to have to sell our best players. It's BS, it's designed to ensure the big clubs with the big revenues stay at the top of the league and every other club will have to perform a miracle to compete. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggy_333 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 I think i read earlier that Howard Hodgson said earlier on Twitter that Luke Organ told him that the maximum we could get for stadium sponsorship would be £4 million per season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dounavilla Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 8 minutes ago, daggy_333 said: I think i read earlier that Howard Hodgson said earlier on Twitter that Luke Organ told him that the maximum we could get for stadium sponsorship would be £4 million per season. So a 10 year deal paid in advance could suffice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 1 hour ago, alreadyexists said: It’s a logical fallacy though isn’t it? Just because person a acts badly, doesn’t mean person b or c also will. I’m not proposing superhuman praise, but perhaps a clean slate is the least they deserve? Nobody is suggesting anything other than giving them 'a clean slate' are they? Certainly I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 1 hour ago, PompeyVillan said: My understanding is that any dodgy sponsorship deals must represent 'market value', as in renaming Villa Park for £100 million a season is out of the question because it would be considered alongside other such deals. Of course, they'd see through it, no other championship club would realistically get such a deal. But that isn't to say that there are no ways of increasing revenue, I am sure there are, but it isn't going to solve our FPP nightmare overnight. My sense is that we've got to ride this out, and my hope is that we do it properly. There's no way around FFP, it's a ball ache and we'll always have to live within the ridiculous limitations it's set. Afterall, if the idea is to prevent clubs from going bust, then it clearly doesn't work because we almost went bust. Secondly, now that it appears that we're unlikely to go bust, we're still going to have to sell our best players. It's BS, it's designed to ensure the big clubs with the big revenues stay at the top of the league and every other club will have to perform a miracle to compete. It just seems too rigid to be fair. Having to sell players you can easily afford to keep otherwise is ridiculous. There should be some sort of provision for a renegotiation of the amount on the club being sold to a new owner who has obviously passed the fit and proper person test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted July 21, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2018 42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Nobody is suggesting anything other than giving them 'a clean slate' are they? Certainly I'm not. The quote in my original post was implying that they will likely make the same mistakes as Xia. It wasn’t quoting you. Looking forward to finding out what they’re first major act is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Obviously biased. However I'm starting to think new owners should always get a clean slate with regards to FFP as the rules really are not fair. More a hindrance than anything else ffs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 I feel pretty confident this is a bona fide takeover and, in the long term, will be great for the Club. BUT - it doesn’t get out out of FFP restrictions , and nor should it. We have just come as close as any sensible fan would want to the trap door, I don’t want to go anywhere near it again. I don’t care, genuinely don’t care, if we are in the Championship 2 or 3 more seasons, as long as everything these guys do is progressive and sustainable. It doesn’t matter. Whilst it’s of course great to challenge for things ( which we will) it’s pointkess if it’s buikt on sand. Regardless of how we ‘ might’ or ‘ could’ ‘get round’ FFP I’d be disappointed if we do, if, as it usually does, it involves taking ANY risk with the Clubs future. If the owners want to GIVE their money to the Club, within the rules, that’s great. If they want to carry out sensible development with well structured loans, they way many businesses do, then great, to an extent. But everything they do needs to be prudent, sustainable, methodical. I’ve no interest at all in gambling, even if it means Jack goes or whatever. This is a great, one off, chance, let’s not blow it. Yes, those a League above will be taking in more money. But there will be little growth in any real financial gap, since that money will go on the ludicrous transfer fees we are seeing and associated wages. It won’t be long before some of today’s Premier League Clubs are in the mire. Ill take the long, if necessary slow, road. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 22 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: It just seems too rigid to be fair. Having to sell players you can easily afford to keep otherwise is ridiculous. There should be some sort of provision for a renegotiation of the amount on the club being sold to a new owner who has obviously passed the fit and proper person test. Can we “ easily afford “ to keep them though ? Isnt that the point ? The wage bill ( and other bills and costs) needs to reflect our Championship Income, not the wealth of the owners. They can best serve us at present by building an efficient, sustainable, Club. When and if the time is right their wealth can finance transfers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted July 21, 2018 Author Share Posted July 21, 2018 3 hours ago, PompeyVillan said: My understanding is that any dodgy sponsorship deals must represent 'market value', as in renaming Villa Park for £100 million a season is out of the question because it would be considered alongside other such deals. Of course, they'd see through it, no other championship club would realistically get such a deal. Yes indeed. Every now and then someone will write about ‘getting around FFP’ by sponsoring the stadium/training ground/dugout/corner flag for 500M and then someone will point out it can’t be done that way. Then, as sure as night turns to day, someone will once again say something like “y don’t dey jus sponsa VP for 700,000,000” then the reason why will explanied again. Someone might lazily reference Man City (a wholly different scenario) and the whole thing goes around in repetition. Ad infinitum. You can guarantee in a few pages time someone will suggest it again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggy_333 Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Just now, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: Yes indeed. Every now and then someone will write about ‘getting around FFP’ by sponsoring the stadium/training ground/dugout/corner flag for 500M and then someone will point out it can’t be done that way. Then, as sure as night turns to day, someone will once again say something like “y don’t dey jus sponsa VP for 700,000,000” then the reason why will explanied again. Someone might lazily reference Man City (a wholly different scenario) and the whole thing goes around in repetition. Ad infinitum. You can guarantee in a few pages time someone will suggest it again. Facebook Villa pages seem to be even worse than this forum for suggesting ridiculous FFP sponsorship loopholes. It's driving me insane. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jareth Posted July 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 21, 2018 Why don't our new owners just sponsor VP for £700 million? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 4 hours ago, daggy_333 said: I think i read earlier that Howard Hodgson said earlier on Twitter that Luke Organ told him that the maximum we could get for stadium sponsorship would be £4 million per season. 100 year deal it is then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts