kiltorken Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 3 hours ago, terrytini said: I was, er, I mean...you do know I was joking yes ? In light of the previous couple of Posts ? Ah right yeah, wasn't really following this topic much 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 23, 2018 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2018 57 minutes ago, Junxs said: Well in that scenario, wouldnt you say us honouring the contracts of the players we dont want to use would fit better? (Ross McCormack and Micah Richards being the broken watches but we are still paying them) It would be like the new owners being told they are not allowed to refurbish the shop because the previous owner refurbished it over the last 3 years, it doesnt matter that you have paid off those loans that the previous owners couldnt afford to pay, it doesnt matter you have enough money to turn this corner shop into a supermarket, you are not allowed because the previous owner refurbished it. In the real world theres nothing you can relate FFP to from a business point of view, it just doesnt make any sense. Everyone knows in reality its there to stop the biggest known names around the world from being overtaken, they dont want people in South East Asia having to learn new names for their brand. That's not how I see it. If the "law" around trading (FFP) says "you need to comply as a business with these rules" then whoever owns the business is irrelevant. it's the entity that's the business, not whichever owner Fred Bloggs/Tony X or whoever need to play by the rules. The same applies to the shop down the road competing for business - they shouldn't have some kind of sneaky workaround for a law that says they need to play fair too. FFP applies to everyone in the league, it's not biased against anyone. Level playing field. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 1 hour ago, blandy said: they shouldn't have some kind of sneaky workaround for a law that says they need to play fair too. FFP applies to everyone in the league, it's not biased against anyone. Level playing field. You mean just like corporation tax . Every company pays it, but some companies have clever accountants who substantially reduce the liability. I fully expect our new overlords to work around it. Worst case is they will have to grease a few palms with money to get approval to circumvent the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junxs Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 58 minutes ago, blandy said: That's not how I see it. If the "law" around trading (FFP) says "you need to comply as a business with these rules" then whoever owns the business is irrelevant. it's the entity that's the business, not whichever owner Fred Bloggs/Tony X or whoever need to play by the rules. The same applies to the shop down the road competing for business - they shouldn't have some kind of sneaky workaround for a law that says they need to play fair too. FFP applies to everyone in the league, it's not biased against anyone. Level playing field. So Man City with a similar sized fan base (possibly smaller) to Newcastle Utd can spend 50x as much, something doesnt add up. I don't think winning the title and being in the champions league gives you £1b more than your competing businesses. Also see PSG Anyway, I'm not saying we should cheat or find loopholes just because others have. But where is the attraction for prospective new owners? why would someone buy a rundown shop if they arent allowed to invest in it? We're Aston Villa so its easier to find new buyers, but the likes of Brentford would go bust if they were in a pickle and new owners werent allowed to come in and save them by spending some money. How is it fair on fans of a club that have to fold because of ill spending by a few individuals that own their club - and they cant be saved by new owners even if they had the money to save them because of the 3 year cycle of FFP. There has to be some middle ground otherwise no club would be able to exchange hands to save itself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 5 hours ago, CosmicVillan said: Yeah we've all round the houses with that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 In the words of Tony Robinson : I have a cunning plan... This is Welsh Rugby team Scarlets' new shirt. Between the top & shorts they have 18 different sponsors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Every other mega rich owner finds a way to get around it. Surely they can do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Doesnt championship allow 2 sponsors. We could entertain a bidding war between a conpany of Eden and one of Nassef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skills Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 16 hours ago, blandy said: I think this is another overly optimistic post and perhaps at least in part, innacurate. I also think Matt Scott is wrong about FFP not being a worry, or being a smokescreen. We know that FFP works over a rolling 3 year period. We know that for the season just gone we narrowly avoided breaching the rules. We know that for the season approaching our overall rolling allowance for the 3 year window is 22 million smaller than previously .We know that our income from Prem league parachute payments is a further 18 million lower. We know that the EFL rules require the Club not only to comply with the rules, but to act in good faith. We know that this coming season and the 3 year FFP period are all post Lerner ownership. We also know from the accounts that player sales of 20 odd million quid helped with the previous seasons FFP, and we know that transfer fees due to us have been brought forward (and thus count for last season, not this next one, so that's a further gap to be filled). We know that the release of Terry, Snoddy, Johnson et al happened because we could not, this season, afford their wages and loan fees. We know that we could not afford to buy Sam J for 6 million. So we know that this next season we have a 40million hole to fill. Sure, the wages for all those loan players, for Gabby and others are off the slate, and that's a significant help, but nowhere near the 40 million+ that we need to correct. ANd I agree that getting more players with high wages off the books is essential We also know that while we may talk and " the league would listen to a sensible argument from the new owners about how they will make us sustainable" that there's nothing in the FFP rules that offers any such talks as a get out of jail card. Quite the opposite. All clubs have to be treated equally, as far as possible and the integrity of the league has to be maintained - thus sanctioning of exceptionalism for Villa or anyone else is highly unlikely. We know that there are specific clauses in EFL FFP to catch owners and/or related parties "cheating" round the rules by paying OTT for executive boxes, sponsoring things above market value and other such shenanigans. We know that the other 23 Clubs will not want to cede an advantage to Villa and would make representations (see Villa and Leeds moaning about Wolves last season) if there was the hint of something devious. If you're Burton, with tiny gates, or embargoed Small Heath, or Leeds or Wednesday or Sheff Utd. you are absolutely not going to stand for Villa being given a helping hand to beat them over the season. This club has got to be run in such a way as to be sustainable, not to be dependent on owner(s) throwing good money after bad. Get the wages under control, get the structure right, while also being ambitious and proactive in marketing and income generation. Do we know the annual loss for the year that is dropping off the rolling 3 year window? Its the year that we were relegated and could only assume its a very large number, if so this definitely helps the cause for the coming year but happy to be proven wrong. Your comment highlighted above all happened prior to the new owners where we had a cashflow issue which was coming to a point of crisis. In my opinion, Xia made these decisions to aid cashflow and the fact he really doesn't have funds and not necessarily to offset FFP/losses I actually don't buy we have a 40m ffp hole and think this number has been overinflated for a number of reasons. Im also not in the 'giddy' camp either where we'll buy who we want when we want, I just don't think we are in as bleak position as you have put it. Proof will be in the pudding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skills Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 17 hours ago, omariqy said: https://7500toholte.sbnation.com/2018/5/30/17407010/aston-villa-financial-fair-play-jack-grealish-james-chester-albert-adomah A good article. In 2016/17 the figure is £3.5m loss as £11m of that £14m loss was to do with infrastructure and the academy. The estimate for 2017/2018 is around £30m loss. That puts us on a £33m running loss to 2018/19. In 2018/19 we lose a big chunk in revenue because the drop in parachute payments. We stand to make a loss of £55m according to the estimates. That means we have a 3 year running loss of £88m when we need to be at £39m. So a defecit of say £49m. Of that amount £13m to £15m went out the door in wages. Additionally Gil, Amavi and Gollini went permanently and on those deals we add £5m of profit to FFP. So the deficit is now £29m. These are all estimates but it could be anywhere between that £25m to £30m figure roughly. great article, thanks for that. Anyone know what the 3 year window loss allowable was for the year ended 2017/18?? From his numbers and his forecast, our loss was 62.5m and theres been no noise that we were in breach so was it higher than the 39m we're allowed for the next 3 year window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjc Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Skills said: great article, thanks for that. Anyone know what the 3 year window loss allowable was for the year ended 2017/18?? From his numbers and his forecast, our loss was 62.5m and theres been no noise that we were in breach so was it higher than the 39m we're allowed for the next 3 year window? I think the rolling allowable loss for this season was £61m. The rules allow for £35m for each year in the PL (2015/16), plus £13m for each year in the EFL (2016/17 and 2017/18). So much closer to the £62.5m forecast. And that sort of makes sense, as I think months ago the club suggested we would be okay this year, but that it would be pretty tight. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 12 hours ago, Skills said: Do we know the annual loss for the year that is dropping off the rolling 3 year window? I vaguely recall reading it somewhere on this thread as being £105m (just within the allowed losses for FFP) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robtaylor200 Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 My head hurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 FFP needs an up to date challenge in the courts. Since it's introduction some years back the running costs of even a second tier football club have rocketed. The price of a Championship player could be as much as 30/40 million. Why should club owners who have the proven resources to improve their club without financial risk, be constrained within a ridiculously out dated financial straight jacket? FFP is a restraint of fair trade. Professional football is big business and no longer a sport. The rules must be changed in recognition of this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjc Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said: FFP needs an up to date challenge in the courts. Since it's introduction some years back the running costs of even a second tier football club have rocketed. The price of a Championship player could be as much as 30/40 million. Why should club owners who have the proven resources to improve their club without financial risk, be constrained within a ridiculously out dated financial straight jacket? FFP is a restraint of fair trade. Professional football is big business and no longer a sport. The rules must be changed in recognition of this. But hasn’t it in some ways saved us (or even not been stringent enough)? Had we been allowed to spend more under FFP, you could easily have seen us offering bigger contracts last summer and in January, further chasing the goal. Which could have seen us go under had we still missed out on promo. We've invested plenty - not the rules that are the problem in my opinion, it’s the fact we’ve delivered so badly against significant expenditure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjc Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 17 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: I vaguely recall reading it somewhere on this thread as being £105m (just within the allowed losses for FFP) It’s £35m per season when in the PL, so 3x years of that would be £105m. But for every year in the Champ it drops to £13m per season. So for last season - £61m (1x£35m + 2x£13m). For next / this season it’s £39m (3x£13m). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 FFP should only apply to shitcan clubs with no money and no support like those doughnuts up the road. Let the little clubs be self sustainable. If you have a Sugar Daddy, or in our case 2, rules shouldnt matter. Give us our rightful place back at the table you cockblockin partypoopers. We need to rock back up like Howd ya like me now Ma". All the years of hurt and suffering, its our turn, just our luck we're stuck in the second division and not allowed to spend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post villabromsgrove Posted July 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2018 I would rather see FFP removed and club's being allowed to spend what they can provably afford to spend. The acid test would be a requirement that zero debt be attached to the club at the end of each fiscal year. That way owners would become personally liable for their own excess expenditure, and clubs could be sold on debt free. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted July 24, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) I feel dirty but I took a butchers at the Man Ure website to see what "partners" they have got. They have got bucket loads including some really random ones. We've got about 7 official partners. New owners need to sign deal after deal after deal for official partners. For certain we need to see an official cement supplier to Aston Villa Football Club. Edited July 24, 2018 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, sidcow said: I feel dirty but I took a butchers at the Man Ure website to see what "partners" they have got. They have got bucket loads including some really random ones. We've got about 7 official partners. New owners need to sign deal after deal after deal for official partners. For certain we need to see an official cement supplier to Aston Villa Football Club. We tried that one before and ended up with Ron Vlaar 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts