The AVFC FFP thread

[PieFacE]

36 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

The revaluation of property added an extra 40 million to our losses on paper. This enabled Xia and Wyness to blame FFP for all our restrictive problems. We had to listen to Bruce trundle the same old FFP excuse out week after week after week.

We now know that the reason for a failure to spend was the obvious one that Xia hadn't got any money, and the property devaluation could well have been an ideal way of masking the fact. 

Property revaluation wouldn't have helped us pay tax bills. 

[cb_82]

Announce Salah & announce promotion

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

I haven't got any personal knowledge of either the "devaluation" or the way that such a loss (on paper) would affect our FFP status. Matt Scott was introduced as a financial expert on such matters, and he indicated that a "positive revaluation" would be extremely helpful in terms of FFP.

Perhaps we need to wait for third party analysis of Scott's comments.

I'm going on reading the actual FFP rules. I have repeatedly posted in this thread the link to those rules 'yur. Those rules say that a drop in value of the Stadium won't be held against a club for FFP purposes. They say absolutely nothing about a rise in value of a stadium being either included or excluded. Now it could be argued that because it's not in the list of specifically excluded stuff, that it's included, and therefore permissible to use as a means of complying, in this instance. But equally, the wording also says 

Quote

The Fair Play Result is an amount equal to a Championship Club’s profit / loss before tax, after adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4.2.....

4.2          The Fair Play Result is calculated as profit / loss before tax (as identified by the Accounts), adjusted to take into account:

4.2.1      profit / loss on disposal of tangible fixed assets;

4.2.2      depreciation / impairment of tangible fixed assets (net of any capital grants);

4.2.3      amortisation / impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations);

4.2.4      the element of any transaction(s) with Related Party(ies) (as defined in Appendix A), above or below fair value;

4.2.5      net expenditure on Youth Development Activities (as defined in Appendix B);

4.2.6      financial support for the Championship Club’s Charitable Community Scheme (as defined in Appendix C);

4.2.7      Permitted Exceptional Items (as defined in Appendix D); and

4.2.8      in the case of Promoted League One Clubs or Promoted Championship Clubs (as defined in Rule 8.1) only, Promotion Related Payments (as defined in Appendix E)....

Appendix C Championship Clubs can apply to the Fair Play Panel at any time for permission for any item to be included as a Permitted Exceptional Item adjustment (in accordance with Rule 4.2.7) in calculating their Fair Play Result....

2.2           The Fair Play Panel shall, subject always to Rule 11.3, have absolute discretion when determining any application made under paragraph 2.

Which I (as a non expert) interpret to mean we can ask, and then a panel will decide whether or not they're going to let us. It doesn't appear to be black and white. Until or unless we ask, we won't know, and if the answer is "No" then we're stuffed, in that regard.

But yeah, let's see what experts say, for sure, rather than going off the word of one journalist though I'm sure he's a fine fellow.

[omariqy]

15 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I take it this means that the revaluation plan is viable because FFP would still not have been breached had the losses on the land been accounted for. 

Shirley we failed FFP last year then?

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Shirley we failed FFP last year then?

Yes if the loss was included, but as @blandy says, it is excluded. Might be Matt Scott's argument is fragmenting in real time - will be interesting to see his follow up tweets which he said he would do. 

[omariqy]

Matt Scott's tweets are even more interesting now. Can't link them but he seems to have insider knowledge of our affairs. 

[HeyAnty]

39 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I wonder what happened back then - I mean if the stadium/land is in the FFP calculation then surely they couldn't just waive that loss especially for us - unless this is what folks mean about new owners getting leeway... 

Unless it was to appease the fans and let them believe we were worse off regards FFP and then counldnt spend the money (because Dr T didnt have it)

[Jareth]

 

[omariqy]

6 minutes ago, Jareth said:

 

From that it seems that we didn't actually enact the exclusion but the EFL gave us leeway as it was under a previous ownership and we complied with PL rules at the time. This means that those losses can still be excluded but we can now use them to our benefit this season. If I read that right. 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, omariqy said:

From that it seems that we didn't actually enact the exclusion but the EFL gave us leeway as it was under a previous ownership and we complied with PL rules at the time. This means that those losses can still be excluded but we can now use them to our benefit this season. If I read that right. 

Cheers for that, my brain had started to over heat! 

[TheStagMan]

so basically we have some accountants that can make FFP go away as a short term problem?

[omariqy]

If true then the board have to make a decision whether to continue to gamble with FFP and bankroll us or take the opportunity to come up with a sustainable strategy. The good news is that we don't HAVE to sell our best players. We can now choose to. I personally would sell one of our top players and look to reduce the wage bill and bring in players who are more youthful but with higher ceilings. For example a £10m per annum transfer budget is pretty healthy in the Championship and sustainable. 

[villaglint]

FFP thread is the new Transfer thread. 

Where the frick is the it's happening GIF!

[CosmicVillan]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Does this land revaluation thing mean that we don't have to bring on Chris Samba up front anymore?

Makes me less nervous than seeing him at the back.  

[CosmicVillan]

1 hour ago, villabromsgrove said:

Perhaps we need to wait for third party analysis of Scott's comments.

Or we could just start throwing it about like confetti 

[Jareth]

10 minutes ago, omariqy said:

The good news is that we don't HAVE to sell our best players. We can now choose to.

This all adds up, we know Bruce has been told (he said so) that Grealish will not be sold cheaply. We must therefore have the luxury option of not selling him - which means meeting a FFP deficit is not a reason to sell players. In short, cash-flow sorted, FFP sorted. This is a very good opportunity now to build something right. 

[PieFacE]

I think if FFP is now sorted, which is a big if, then the new owners have a really difficult choice to make. 

Honestly, I'm all for having a rebuild and integrating the youth more. Bringing in a more forward thinking manager and go with a 3-5 year plan.

But, I dunno, I kinda suspect they might have one more throw at the dice and give Bruce a relatively good backing. 

[terrytini]

Instead of the cash can’t we “revalue” our footballing losses or “set them against “ future possible defeats, thereby getting extra Points added on to last seasons tally and Bingo ! We can be back playing PL football in three weeks - or even next week if we re- evaluate the calendar ! 

In any event, if this works, I’d like to offer my appreciation of the depreciation....

[sidcow]

35 minutes ago, CosmicVillan said:

Or we could just start throwing it about like confetti 

That's what I think we should do with the cash.  Who scored 15+ goals in The Championship for the first time in their career last year, lets offer £15m for em and quadruple their current wages.  Hurrah!!

[TheEgo]

1 hour ago, omariqy said:

From that it seems that we didn't actually enact the exclusion but the EFL gave us leeway as it was under a previous ownership and we complied with PL rules at the time. This means that those losses can still be excluded but we can now use them to our benefit this season. If I read that right. 

That's how i read it. We were just over the 105m loss limit back then so complied (just) it was a different 3 year cycle. So now we can seemingly look to re-value the land and include that in FFP calculations. It has to happen obviously, but it 'appears' to be an option for new owners to explore.