The AVFC FFP thread

[romavillan]

On 03/11/2018 at 18:06, Demitri_C said:

I’m stunned that that happened....I  really am 

BE interesting to find otu what happened with Milan then, they shit the bed at having the rules applied to them (quite publicly). They were saying left right and center that City, PSG, Barcelona had all settled with UEFA but when it was their turn they had the rules applied with no option to settle. Either they got the swiss bank accounts IBAN wrong or something else happened.

[romavillan]

40 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

If Grealish continues to play really eye catching football for the next two months, I think he will activate his (rumoured?) release clause. That will sort out FFP even though I would be very sad to see Jack go.

Hopefully Purslow is working on a suitably large sponsorship deal which will satisfy both our needs and the Premier League's overview. 

Grealish can't activate his own release clause unless he wants to buy himself out of his contract? Not sure he's got £30m spare knocking about to do that

othing we can do if they have put a release clause in there and someone stumps up the cash to meet the valuation and Grealish wants to go. Still though, it's 1) speculation there is a release clause, 2) quite possible he wants to stay actually and that 3) we were smart enough to put any release clause so high that no-one would seriously want to pay it.

[villabromsgrove]

16 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Grealish can't activate his own release clause unless he wants to buy himself out of his contract? Not sure he's got £30m spare knocking about to do that

othing we can do if they have put a release clause in there and someone stumps up the cash to meet the valuation and Grealish wants to go. Still though, it's 1) speculation there is a release clause, 2) quite possible he wants to stay actually and that 3) we were smart enough to put any release clause so high that no-one would seriously want to pay it.

Thanks for correcting my wording. I actually meant that If Grealish keeps playing so well, it will bring in offers that will trigger his release clause. 

[terrytini]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

The rules and maths.

But it’s been stated that we are fine as regards transfers so my question to the Poster was why they thought we’d have to sell Grealish, Chester, and a host of others.

If that turned out to be true we’d have Category 1 liars in charge. Is that likely ?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

But it’s been stated that we are fine as regards transfers so my question to the Poster was why they thought we’d have to sell Grealish, Chester, and a host of others.

If that turned out to be true we’d have Category 1 liars in charge. Is that likely ?

Has it been in the past?

No accusations, no slurs, I just find it impossible to reconcile cold hard maths and rules with the statements.

[Vive_La_Villa]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

Has it been in the past?

No accusations, no slurs, I just find it impossible to reconcile cold hard maths and rules with the statements.

Either there’s plans and/or loopholes to get around FFP or we’re just being lied to again and are still in deep s**t.

[Dave-R]

Has there even been any evidence there is a release clause in Jacks contract, I tend not to believe media and those that came out who are from other clubs ie managers stating there was one.

I believe when we were in trouble and selling jack was a priority as we needed the coinage, the owners came in and put a stop to that and ritely so, it's about time we stopped feeding other teams with our talent. Remember Wes Edans does have sports experience, he's familiar in building a team and turned around the milwhakee bucks. I also think our new owners would want to come in and do things the rite way first time and it seems to be working.

If the owners are lieing and that's if, then Purslow is also lieing, he actually talked about FFP on camera rite, all about staying within the rules, not breaching and working within the system and how he was one of those who signed to bring FFP in.

I don't think our new owners are lieing or bending the rules, they have done an awful lot to remain just under the fine line of FFP it seems. I think somewhere along the way a team like man city breaching these rules is going to cost them, soon some club/clubs is going to be made an example of, it's only a matter of time before it happens, it would be crazy not to start with the recent storm of two big teams commiting FFP rule breaks.

 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

I personally think FFP isn’t black and white in terms of rules and the financial clout of the owners and the way the club is being run is taken in to consideration.

If you look at the majority of clubs that have been punished by FFP rules it’s clear in most cases they were being very badly run and heading for disaster. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

16 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

don't think our new owners are lieing or bending the rules, they have done an awful lot to remain just under the fine line of FFP it seems. I think somewhere along the way a team like man city breaching these rules is going to cost them, soon some club/clubs is going to be made an example of, it's only a matter of time before it happens, it would be crazy not to start with the recent storm of two big teams commiting FFP rule breaks.

Or a team like Man City are so well run, are so successful, are showing a massive return, and are contributing massive to the community.  Maybe their model has become sustainable so there’s no need to punish or make examples of them?

The major spending to get them in the top 4 was done before FFP. 

[Dave-R]

3 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Or a team like Man City are so well run, are so successful, are showing a massive return, and are contributing massive to the community.  Maybe their model has become sustainable so there’s no need to punish or make examples of them?

The major spending to get them in the top 4 was done before FFP. 

I know what your saying, but even some of those teams are spending more than what they have coming in all to stay on top.

I think if the owners can afford it and want to spend it, well why not. Wonder how we would of faired if Wes and Nas had of come in before FFP, we will never know if they'd of gone to the lengths as to what man city did to become a top club again.

It's not just the buying of an expensive team, the club's named over the past few days seem to be in breach of a fair few things ie the selling of player names abroad for high values all while saving in marketing income. There seems to be more allegations coming out and when a club is doing sly stuff and not disclosing it to the rite channels they should be made an example of I think or FFP means nothing.

It wouldn't surprise me if the smaller clubs get done all while the bigger clubs dodge the bullet, because big or screws small somehow.

[GarethRDR]

3 hours ago, Dave-R said:

Has there even been any evidence there is a release clause in Jacks contract

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume there is at this point, it would just be common sense on his/his agent's part given there's no guarantee we're going up anytime soon and the reported interest. Villa fan or not, I don't see why he would sign an extension otherwise.

 

Plus keeping the clause out of the news at the time of the contract signing means a narrative can be spun later that any future move away was an opportunity that came to the player and not a departure that he agitated for. The club can then also spin the line that they didn't want to sell but it was out of their hands and the offer was at least an acceptable one. Jack gets a move up the ladder, both him and the club come out of it without drawing too much ire.

 

All speculation on my part of course, but I would be genuinely surprised if Jack is still here for another season in the Championship if we don't go up.

[Dave-R]

28 minutes ago, GarethRDR said:

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume there is at this point, it would just be common sense on his/his agent's part given there's no guarantee we're going up anytime soon and the reported interest. Villa fan or not, I don't see why he would sign an extension otherwise.

 

Plus keeping the clause out of the news at the time of the contract signing means a narrative can be spun later that any future move away was an opportunity that came to the player and not a departure that he agitated for. The club can then also spin the line that they didn't want to sell but it was out of their hands and the offer was at least an acceptable one. Jack gets a move up the ladder, both him and the club come out of it without drawing too much ire.

 

All speculation on my part of course, but I would be genuinely surprised if Jack is still here for another season in the Championship if we don't go up.

I can't see anyone coming in and paying that much for him, every team out there up in the premiership had that chance while we were in the blender (could of picked jack up for as low as 10 mill) the only club that seem interested were Tottenham which they fluffed up. Not only that but Tottenham won't come chasing again especially at that price there owner is a cheapskate for a start.

I think Jack resigned because of the talks with our owners, I think Jack resigned knowing what there plans were. I also think Jack enjoys it way to much at villa and think he enjoys the challenge of the championship and how he's a target. His own brother came out and stated jack didn't want to go anywhere, all while all these ex players/managers and Brian clough kept chatting crap which in turn I think it was to cause more chaos at villa considering our circumstances at the time. It was like they wanted to see us with nothing left because they knew if jack had of gone it would of hurt us and left us heart broken more than it would of financially hurt us.

I think there were alot of funny smells coming from all directions at that time, because that's what the media do. They all come out the wood work when something or someone is in trouble, they don't like to be the solution to problems, just to cause more problems on top of existing ones.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Dave-R

[terrytini]

14 hours ago, blandy said:

Has it been in the past?

No accusations, no slurs, I just find it impossible to reconcile cold hard maths and rules with the statements.

I fully understand that and wouldn’t blame anyone for scepticism after what we’ve been through.

I stand to feel very stupid indeed if it turns out they are as full of BS as all the rest, I just think the comments were sincere, not least because he didn’t need to say it - people would’ve accepted a “ we can’t buy anyone for two years” approach given how close we - apparently - were to going bust.

Yet in a calm, assured way he spelt out all was well. 

I just can’t imagine these guys would do that then say “ ah but it’s only if we sell Jack etc”.

We shall see, of course.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I personally think FFP isn’t black and white in terms of rules and the financial clout of the owners and the way the club is being run is taken in to consideration.

If you look at the majority of clubs that have been punished by FFP rules it’s clear in most cases they were being very badly run and heading for disaster. 

You might be right to a point, on the first line - but only to a point, because if the decision(s) are interprative, other clubs can cry foul. The numbers stipulated for losses that must be met, they can't really be changed on a case by case basis for different clubs. I suppose a breach by a few pence or pounds might be let off, but nothing significant.

But I can see what you're getting at.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

I fully understand that and wouldn’t blame anyone for scepticism after what we’ve been through.

I stand to feel very stupid indeed if it turns out they are as full of BS as all the rest, I just think the comments were sincere, not least because he didn’t need to say it - people would’ve accepted a “ we can’t buy anyone for two years” approach given how close we - apparently - were to going bust.

Yet in a calm, assured way he spelt out all was well. 

I just can’t imagine these guys would do that then say “ ah but it’s only if we sell Jack etc”.

We shall see, of course.

Indeed. The main difficulty with the numbers is that TV income (parachute payments) have dropped by about 18 million and allowable losses have dropped by 26 million. That's a £44 million change between last season and this. Sure wage costs have dropped a fair bit, but nowhere near 44 million. So that gap has to be made up by money coming in (net player sales, commercial etc.) or cost cuts elsewhere. We've had manager sacking (yay!) and other coaching staff also going - so compo payments. We've got players in on loan on high wages, still.

There's a gap.

We also know that last season Wyness was saying we'd be (just) OK in meeting the rules, but that failure to gain promotion would mean stark changes. Whatever other bull he may have come out with, that remains true.

So either some magic invisible source of FFP legal income has to turn up, or what we were assured is misleading and players do have to be sold.

I know what I think, and I don't believe in magic. 

[terrytini]

@blandyI fully agree with your understanding of the figures. In believing the owners I am assuming there’s something, somewhere, we’ve missed.

As I said I just can’t believe he will turn around in January and say “ no, no, of course I meant we are only ok if we sell XYZ”.

 

[TRO]

The noises coming out of Villa Park, with regards to FFP....are in stark contrast to the last regime.

could it be as simple as Nous and creative accountancy?

They seem not overly concerned, in fact we seem more concerned than them.

Edited November 7, 2018 by TRO

[romavillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Indeed. The main difficulty with the numbers is that TV income (parachute payments) have dropped by about 18 million and allowable losses have dropped by 26 million. That's a £44 million change between last season and this. Sure wage costs have dropped a fair bit, but nowhere near 44 million. So that gap has to be made up by money coming in (net player sales, commercial etc.) or cost cuts elsewhere. We've had manager sacking (yay!) and other coaching staff also going - so compo payments. We've got players in on loan on high wages, still.

There's a gap.

We also know that last season Wyness was saying we'd be (just) OK in meeting the rules, but that failure to gain promotion would mean stark changes. Whatever other bull he may have come out with, that remains true.

So either some magic invisible source of FFP legal income has to turn up, or what we were assured is misleading and players do have to be sold.

I know what I think, and I don't believe in magic. 

Is there no way that the owners clearing the clubs debt has an effect on this? Purslow vaguely linked the debt and FFP when he was talking about us being sorted financially and being able to invest in Jan. 

[AvfcRigo82]

On 06/11/2018 at 17:29, villabromsgrove said:

If Grealish continues to play really eye catching football for the next two months, I think he will activate his (rumoured?) release clause. That will sort out FFP even though I would be very sad to see Jack go.

Hopefully Purslow is working on a suitably large sponsorship deal which will satisfy both our needs and the Premier League's overview. 

This was always going to be a danger of happening.

Like said, atleast now everyone knows where they stand price tag wise if someone did come back in for him.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, romavillan said:

Is there no way that the owners clearing the clubs debt has an effect on this? Purslow vaguely linked the debt and FFP when he was talking about us being sorted financially and being able to invest in Jan. 

Not to my reading, but I could be wrong. The EFL FFP spiel is extensive and brain taxing.

There's this extract which covers exceptional items (i.e. "can we get out of it by this?)

Quote

Permitted Exceptional Items

2.1          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.

2.3          Applications under paragraph 2.1 must be made in writing together with copies of all documents in support of such application, to The League which will then (absent any prior decision of the Fair Play Panel on the same subject matter) refer the matter to the Fair Play Panel for determination.  The decision of the Fair Play Panel shall be provided to the Club not later than 28 days after the date of receipt of the application.  For the avoidance of doubt, the last date for filing any application for a given Reporting Period is 1^st October immediately preceding the date for filing Fair Pay Information for that Reporting Period in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3.1.

2.4          The following items may be the subject of an application for treatment as a Permitted Exceptional Item under these Rules by a Championship Club:

2.4.1       The timing of transfer fund receipts and their subsequent use in financing replacement players (for example where a Championship Club recognises a transfer receipt in one Reporting Period but then utilises those funds for player purchases in a subsequent Reporting Period);

2.4.2       Post year end player sales proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses;

2.4.3       Costs (net of any insurance proceeds) associated with a career ending injury;

2.4.4       Exceptional litigation and associated professional fees;

2.4.5       Exceptional bad debts; and

2.4.6       Stadium revaluation losses or reversal of losses including depreciation adjustments to the extent that these are recognised in the profit and loss account in line with FRS 15 or equivalent International Accounting Standard.

2.5          By way of further illustration in the event a Championship Club suffers a material loss through, say, its major contracted sponsor being unable to fulfil its financial obligations under that contract or where a material bad debt arises through the liquidation of another football club both these items would be covered by 2.4.5 above.

2.6          The League may from time to time add to the list of Permitted Exceptional Items set out in paragraph 2.4 without requiring an amendment to these Rules.

2.7          The following items cannot be the subject of an application for treatment as a Permitted Exceptional Item under these Rules by a Championship Club:

2.7.1       profit / loss on the disposal of player registrations;

2.7.2       amortisation / impairment of player registrations (subject to 2.4.3 above); and

2.7.3       any costs associated with a change in team management including, by way of example and without limitation, termination payments to former managers, or compensation fees to former clubs.

There's now't about owners clearing debts being a get out clause, though there is about owners doing that to then show the club is viable and can therefore fulfil fixtures the next season etc. SO other than that last item about paying off managers I can't find anything that might help us.