romavillan Posted November 7, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2018 2.4.5? Also something not listed but asper 2.6 not requiring an amendment that Purslow knows about? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 7, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2018 2 hours ago, TRO said: The noises coming out of Villa Park, with regards tom FFP....are in stark contrast to the last regime. could it be as simple as Nous and creative accountancy? I think it's more that this regime actually have some money and the last regime didn't have a mat upon which to place a pot they also didn't have to piss in. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Without selling assets and reducing the wage bill drastically there is no way we are complying with FFP. It's as simple as that unless we are promoted. Promotion is simply not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2018 19 hours ago, romavillan said: 2.4.5? Also something not listed but asper 2.6 not requiring an amendment that Purslow knows about? Maybe....though could normal running cost debts be "exceptional bad debts"? I mean the club's outgoings over the three seasons (this one and the last 2) have been due to high wages, transfer spend, loan fees and "normal" football costs - they're not "exceptional" (other than in the scale of the mess). Sure the new owners inherited debt, and paid off the creditors, but for FFP purposes, the expenditure which caused those debts was on trying and failing to get promoted, not some kind of exceptional circumstance. Maybe there's an argument that the drop down the divisions caused the loss of revenue (but that happens to everyone who drops down, so again not exceptional and also, now we're in the third season down here, we've had 2 seasons + to adjust our cloth accordingly - there are many other clubs who've dropped into this league and surely we couldn't claim exceptionlism on the grounds of being relegated 2 and a half years ago? But who knows... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2018 The only thing I can think of beyond that is a "jam tomorrow" policy. "We'd like to buy your CB please Brentford - we'll pay you £5m. That's £1.00 this season, then £10.00 next season, then £999,989.00 the season after, then £4m the season after that." Can we do that sort of thing? Can you stretch payments over a long period to control when your losses happen? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2018 11 hours ago, Dave-R said: 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. I think it'll go the other way, sooner or later, the football authorities will try to punish a team who can afford lawyers that will kill the rule. I think Man City are more of a danger to FFP than FFP is to Man City. What's more, in its current format, I'm on their side. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, KHV said: Without selling assets and reducing the wage bill drastically there is no way we are complying with FFP. It's as simple as that unless we are promoted. Promotion is simply not happening. you simply can't say that with any conviction, unless you have a crystal ball we are not privvy too. If you go by whats happened so far, its likely you are right, but things don't always work like that.....Fulham was 10th in the league in Jan, last season, before they woke up with Mitrovic pulling the strings. Its a Marathon not a sprint.....of course at some stage we need to perform, but we still have time to put a run together, because that's what we need to go up. Edited November 7, 2018 by TRO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 47 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I think it'll go the other way, sooner or later, the football authorities will try to punish a team who can afford lawyers that will kill the rule. I think Man City are more of a danger to FFP than FFP is to Man City. What's more, in its current format, I'm on their side. I agree.....and they know it. Its all a power game.....and money usually rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted November 7, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2018 2 hours ago, blandy said: Maybe....though could normal running cost debts be "exceptional"? I mean the club's outgoings over the three seasons (this one and the last 2) have been due to high wages, transfer spend, loan fees and "normal" football costs - they're not "exceptional" (other than in the scale of the mess). Sure the new owners inherited debt, and paid off the creditors, but for FFP purposes, the expenditure which caused those debts was on trying and failing to get promoted, not some kind of exceptional circumstance. Maybe there's an argument that the drop down the divisions caused the loss of revenue (but that happens to everyone who drops down, so again not exceptional and also, now we're in the third season down here, we've had 2 seasons + to adjust our cloth accordingly - there are many other clubs who've dropped into this league and surely we couldn't claim exceptionlism on the grounds of being relegated 2 and a half years ago? But who knows... They might be calling shenanigans on some Xia related mortgaging of future revenue, or other dodginess, as exceptional? I have no idea but Purslow is either flat out the best liar in history or I read him wrong in that interview. He seemed convinced that FFP wasn't an issue. He could be the next Trump I spose but the exceptional thing is the only way I can see from the rules you posted anyway, and yeah you're right we got into this mess in a banal and ordinary series of massive cock ups. Good lawyers though, they have a knack of interpreting key phrases to benefit the rich. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 9 hours ago, romavillan said: They might be calling shenanigans on some Xia related mortgaging of future revenue, or other dodginess, as exceptional? I have no idea but Purslow is either flat out the best liar in history or I read him wrong in that interview. He seemed convinced that FFP wasn't an issue. He could be the next Trump I spose but the exceptional thing is the only way I can see from the rules you posted anyway, and yeah you're right we got into this mess in a banal and ordinary series of massive cock ups. Good lawyers though, they have a knack of interpreting key phrases to benefit the rich. Mortgaging of future revenue would create immediate income, so would help the current years figures ( and harm later years figures) so I don’t think that would be it. But the general point you make might be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-R Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 12 hours ago, TRO said: I agree.....and they know it. Its all a power game.....and money usually rules. In the words of alfie(Tom hardy) from peaky blinders- Big often F**** small.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, blandy said: Mortgaging of future revenue would create immediate income, so would help the current years figures ( and harm later years figures) so I don’t think that would be it. But the general point you make might be right. I’m not sure we’ve a great deal of future revenue to borrow against, we already did it on this years parachute payment I believe not to mention owed transfer revenue. There isn’t much left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-R Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Let's be honest FFP is annoying, I can understand why it came in, which was to stop clubs going under, but I think it needs sorting out still. Those owners of clubs with money behind them can't just go out and do a man city anymore, which in turn is annoying for us. But it may not be so annoying for us because we may not be where we are now in terms of the Dean Smith plan being with us and getting a proper game plan under way, we would most likely still be throwing as much money at the situation to resolve a promotion back to the premier or at most under sanctions and in administration. I think we have two very smart and successful owners who know the rule book where ever they go and will sort Aston Villa out whatever it takes. It's been obvious lately that you don't need to do a man city anymore anyway to make a successful team. Our club has had a fair bit of revenue of shirt sales alone, far outselling previous seasons and continue to sell well. I think in terms of marketing and merchandising our club is kicking out really good sales and that is due to the large fan base we have around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 31 minutes ago, Dave-R said: Let's be honest FFP is annoying, I can understand why it came in, which was to stop clubs going under, but I think it needs sorting out still. Those owners of clubs with money behind them can't just go out and do a man city anymore, which in turn is annoying for us. But it may not be so annoying for us because we may not be where we are now in terms of the Dean Smith plan being with us and getting a proper game plan under way, we would most likely still be throwing as much money at the situation to resolve a promotion back to the premier or at most under sanctions and in administration. I think we have two very smart and successful owners who know the rule book where ever they go and will sort Aston Villa out whatever it takes. It's been obvious lately that you don't need to do a man city anymore anyway to make a successful team. Our club has had a fair bit of revenue of shirt sales alone, far outselling previous seasons and continue to sell well. I think in terms of marketing and merchandising our club is kicking out really good sales and that is due to the large fan base we have around the world. Our revenue from this without parachute premier league money doesn't even scratch the surface of our wage bill 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 5 hours ago, TrentVilla said: I’m not sure we’ve a great deal of future revenue to borrow against, we already did it on this years parachute payment I believe not to mention owed transfer revenue. There isn’t much left. Exactly. The previous reckless behaviour by the club (Xia, Wyness) has meant that income that under normal circs we'd have been getting this season was actually taken last season, which makes us worse off this season. I suppose it's possible the EFL will look kindly on the club now, because the current owners have sorted out the finaical burden they inherited, in a general way, and were lumbered with the consequences of previous owner financial shenanigans. But ultimately it's the Club not individuals who are required to meet FFP regs. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, blandy said: I suppose it's possible the EFL will look kindly on the club now, because the current owners have sorted out the finaical burden they inherited, in a general way, and were lumbered with the consequences of previous owner financial shenanigans. But ultimately it's the Club not individuals who are required to meet FFP regs. You'd hope they look at it that way, because the spirit of the FFP rule was always to prevent reckless management, and this set of owners will hopefully have demonstrated that that is not their intention. It would be counter-productive to Villa's prospects if the FA continue to punish based on the letter of the law whilst watching the new owners actively try to sort out the mess they inherited. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted November 8, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, BOF said: You'd hope they look at it that way, because the spirit of the FFP rule was always to prevent reckless management, and this set of owners will hopefully have demonstrated that that is not their intention. It would be counter-productive to Villa's prospects if the FA continue to punish based on the letter of the law whilst watching the new owners actively try to sort out the mess they inherited. Yeah, hopefully there is way to paint the exceptional recklessness of Xia/Wyness as being "exceptional" for the FFP rules. If they come out and say we've removed all the debt that these cowboys saddled the club with, the club is now safe, but the total cowboy behaviour of the previous owners (which you the EFL thought were fit and proper BTW) can't be allowed to stop us investing in the playing side of the club or it'll be FFP hurting the club now, not the cowboy charlatan words removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, BOF said: You'd hope they look at it that way, because the spirit of the FFP rule was always to prevent reckless management, and this set of owners will hopefully have demonstrated that that is not their intention. It would be counter-productive to Villa's prospects if the FA continue to punish based on the letter of the law whilst watching the new owners actively try to sort out the mess they inherited. Sure. Though if you take the standpoint of a rival club, they'd no doubt say that "the new owners, knowing the situation, then went and spent more money than they had coming in on transfers in January, thus breaching the letter of the FFP law, while we complied. They muist be punished" 26 minutes ago, romavillan said: hopefully there is way to paint the exceptional recklessness of Xia/Wyness as being "exceptional" for the FFP rules. Hopefully, for us there is. I wonder though. Because the clause you highlighted is specific to "exceptional bad debt" (bad debt being money owed to Villa, but throuhg unforseen circumstances no t getting paid to us - like if the sponsor went bust and didn't meet their contractual payments, for example). General being a "reckless money arse" might be a stretch too far, but like you say, let's hope. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted November 8, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 8, 2018 Yep I'm reaching I know, "reckless money arse" has made my day though. So that's something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 22 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: The only thing I can think of beyond that is a "jam tomorrow" policy. "We'd like to buy your CB please Brentford - we'll pay you £5m. That's £1.00 this season, then £10.00 next season, then £999,989.00 the season after, then £4m the season after that." Can we do that sort of thing? Can you stretch payments over a long period to control when your losses happen? I doubt it. It’s still a £5m liability on the books. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts