ThunderPower_14 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 47 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said: I believe that it should be possible for any owner to approach the EFL and prove their ability to safely exceed FFP. The EFL could then insist on holding a bank indemnity for somewhere between twenty and fifty million pounds depending on the size of the intended investment, before approval to invest is given. Bang on, this is exactly how I would do it. Allow owners to safely exceed FFP, but require them to set up a trust account funded by the owner which covers financial liabilities, so if it all goes belly up there is a fund there to pay out player contracts and we aren't suddenly needing to sell the training ground to stay afloat. It might mean that NSWE need to put 30 million pounds in a trust account to cover our wage bill liability over and above what FFP says we can afford, but it proves that we'll remain solvent and can afford to continue to invest. I fully support a system that stops clubs destroying themselves and being wound up, but it shouldn't be at the cost of investment in football if owners are willing and able. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 The reason why FFP is an unfair restraint on free trade is because it is tied to income. If you're a big successful club then your income is probably huge. If you're an unsuccessful club as we've been for the last few years, then your income is considerably less than your expenditure. Therefore the big successful clubs can spend massively without penalty, and clubs like ours although historically big are refused the opportunity to increase our income by expenditure. All businessmen know that you have to speculate in order to accumulate, but EFL FFP does not allow this. If you are a smaller club in the Premier League you are guaranteed huge SKY money even if you're a club with a small infrastructure and support base. If you're top half of the Championship the TV and prize money is tiny in comparison to the Premier league, so there is no way to significantly improve your income even if you have a large infrastructure and support base.. When FFP was introduced in 2011 the lower clubs in the Premier League received around 40 million each. In 2017 the lowest club in the Premier League Hull City had a turnover of 117 million! The financial gulf that has expanded exponentially since the introduction of FFP in 2011 between Premier and Championship leagues, makes a mockery of the Financial Fair Play regulatory system. It needs to be challenged on the basis that it is no longer fit for purpose! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2018 58 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said: The EFL could then insist on holding a bank indemnity for somewhere between twenty and fifty million pounds depending on the size of the intended investment, before approval to invest is given. If for any reason the owner defaults, then his secured indemnity is used by thee EFL to cover all cost over runs. The remainder is then returned to the (now previous) owner when his last liability is settled. This is obviously off the top of my head, but there must be a way to allow a provably rich owner to seriously invest in his own club .... safely. I understand the idea. My imagination / understanding is not adequate enough to think of a foolproof illustration of your idea, though. Every version I try has a major flaw. Either in implementation or where the Law would scupper it. I'm sure the current rules could be changed to be less restrictive of the type of owner investment we'd love, but I'm also wary of "financial doping" as Wenger called it. I kind of like the notion of a level playing field based around the revenue a club can generate through support, through commercial deals, through developing players, talent spotting etc. rather than the whims of the latest Oligarch, Sheik, or Foreign or UK business shark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, villabromsgrove said: All businessmen know that you have to speculate in order to accumulate, but EFL FFP does not allow this. It allows everyone to speculate, but not to such a degree that it could endanger the survival of the club. It's not perfect, but it's stopped clubs going to the wall as they were doing regularly a few years back. It's worked, it's been evolved to get better and will change more. I do understand the argument and desire that if someone wants to spend their fortune on football players, they should be allowed, but I also get the notion that supporters don't want to see their clubs disappear because some previously unknown fool with more money than sense screw it all up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 40 minutes ago, TRO said: I'll bet HDE would have loved FFP......A safehouse to his perfect design. seriously, I don't understand how and when this "thing" is ever going to leave us.....surely there are accountants at Villa who can draw up a plan to deal with it, with some kind of conclusion attached to it....it appears to be the most central thing that is holding the club back. And a lot of other clubs. FFP is entirely negative for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewieGriffin Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 £4M worth of shares bought... does this mean Xia has been further diluted? Gone straight to fighting FFP according to the article ... Quote An update on Companies House suggests new owners Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edenshave pumped at least £4million into Aston Villa. Sawiris and Edens recently bought a 55 per cent controlling stake in Villa from beleaguered Chinese co-owner Tony Xiaand immediately delivered funds to stave off the threat of administration. The mega-wealthy pair have now taken out four million new shares in what appears to be a cash injection to help the club comply with Financial Fair Play. Shares are normally worth £1 each which means the update on Companies House is more than likely worth £4million to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) I'd say they have taken over pumping in the reported £4m a month it takes to keep the club afloat from Dr. Fraud. Afterall he can't get his money out of China due to charlatan related issues. Edited August 3, 2018 by villa89 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted August 3, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted August 3, 2018 19 hours ago, TRO said: I'll bet HDE would have loved FFP......A safehouse to his perfect design. seriously, I don't understand how and when this "thing" is ever going to leave us.....surely there are accountants at Villa who can draw up a plan to deal with it, with some kind of conclusion attached to it....it appears to be the most central thing that is holding the club back. Doug would have the same problem with ffp as I do at fighting the ladies off when I'm drunkenly dancing at 2am! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNeeUs Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 I still don’t get this FPP and that we have to save £40 million (is this figure just a rumour?). In the last three years we’ve spent NET circa £30 million on players. This figure is literally peanuts in the game today (even at Championship level). Wages might be an issue but even then is this causing the £40 million black hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Got to be worth 20-30 million in FFP $ surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 4 hours ago, GNeeUs said: I still don’t get this FPP and that we have to save £40 million (is this figure just a rumour?). In the last three years we’ve spent NET circa £30 million on players. This figure is literally peanuts in the game today (even at Championship level). Wages might be an issue but even then is this causing the £40 million black hole? *based upon estimates as accounts yet to be released Good piece on FFP Tests Quote Financial Fair Play – New Tests The Unspoken Details of Profit and Sustainability Rules *** NOTE – this essay was written before the EFL confirmed that Birmingham City have failed Test1 and Test2 (see below) and have been under hard sanctions for this breach. The EFL have now confirmed that Birmingham are deemed to have also broken Test3 and have been referred to the Disciplinary Committee for a serious breach of EFL Rules. There is a lot of confusion about FFP and the punishments now involved. This essay attempts to explain how FFP changed recently when Profit and Sustainability Rules (P&S Rules) were introduced. more on link. Also, Good Blog on FFP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 If grealish is sold for 30m I think we will get some real quality in befire the window shuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 (edited) That’s if he doesn’t leave last minute.. Levy loves last minute deals which would screw us over. Edited August 4, 2018 by dudevillaisnice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted August 4, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, dudevillaisnice said: That’s if he doesn’t leave last minute.. Levy loves last minute deals which would screw us over. Would like to see us raise the price if he tries to do just that. That could wreck our season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 On 02/08/2018 at 18:48, blandy said: It allows everyone to speculate, but not to such a degree that it could endanger the survival of the club. It's not perfect, but it's stopped clubs going to the wall as they were doing regularly a few years back. It's worked, it's been evolved to get better and will change more. I do understand the argument and desire that if someone wants to spend their fortune on football players, they should be allowed, but I also get the notion that supporters don't want to see their clubs disappear because some previously unknown fool with more money than sense screw it all up. I agree with this. Although it needs a lot of changes im not sure it’s as black and white as many think. I get the impression clubs are looked at on a case by case basis and how they are being run overall. If you look at clubs like Man City and PSG you wonder how the hell they can pass FFP. But then you must consider they are being run by the top people and ensuring revenue is also being bought in. The clubs are in safe hands. Then you look a QPR’s reckless unsustainable spending and you could see straight away it was a disaster waiting to happen. FFP seemed to be very concerned about our spending under Xia and restricted it. It simcr turns out rightly so. However under our new owners they seem to have relaxed. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffer85 Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 27 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: I agree with this. Although it needs a lot of changes im not sure it’s as black and white as many think. I get the impression clubs are looked at on a case by case basis and how they are being run overall. If you look at clubs like Man City and PSG you wonder how the hell they can pass FFP. But then you must consider they are being run by the top people and ensuring revenue is also being bought in. The clubs are in safe hands. Then you look a QPR’s reckless unsustainable spending and you could see straight away it was a disaster waiting to happen. FFP seemed to be very concerned about our spending under Xia and restricted it. It simcr turns out rightly so. However under our new owners they seem to have relaxed. I wonder why? Probably because the new owners have a paper trail and can prove they can cover any losses where as the other cowboy had none of this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilS Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 38 minutes ago, Nigel said: Would like to see us raise the price if he tries to do just that. That could wreck our season! We should set a deadline before the deadline for any such deal to happen. Say Tuesday 6pm, and the price should be £40m+ no waivering, no £40m no deal! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilko154 Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 32 minutes ago, NeilS said: We should set a deadline before the deadline for any such deal to happen. Say Tuesday 6pm, and the price should be £40m+ no waivering, no £40m no deal! Should be today, Tuesday 6pm leaves us 48 hours to replace him. Hopefully they have said 40m by Saturday or **** off 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilS Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, wilko154 said: Should be today, Tuesday 6pm leaves us 48 hours to replace him. Hopefully they have said 40m by Saturday or **** off I can’t disagree with you on that. I would have told them to **** off already, but I guess it isn’t as easy as we would like. Edited August 4, 2018 by NeilS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted August 4, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4, 2018 1 hour ago, NeilS said: We should set a deadline before the deadline for any such deal to happen. Say Tuesday 6pm, and the price should be £40m+ no waivering, no £40m no deal! That never works in reality. I'd tell him it's 5 million more if not done by a set date. At least then it will flush out a bit in time for us to react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts