The AVFC FFP thread

[Raymond]

The only way to make money is to be in the PL and get some of the TV money. The only way to do that is spend. If you spend and don't get there, you get a penalty which further prevents you from reaching the goal. Great system. 

[terrytini]

I still don’t understand how it all relates to gifts.

If I gave a pound towards Villas debts would it breach FFP ? If not,how about a tenner ? How about £100, or £100,000 ? Or what if my wealthy Uncle wants to give them £50,000,000 ? What if he is Edens ?

Or/and...

If I offered to pay for my next 20 years season tickets in advance ? That’d be £10,000.

And if I pay for my Programs, and food, in advance ? And if I’m happy pay £1000 for a shirt ? I know things like sponsorship deals have to be justifiable but if they put a collection bucket outside the gates and it empties out at £40,000,000 surely that’s ok ?

So, if anyone knows ( knows, rather than ‘reckons’) how Clubs stand as regards people giving them ‘no strings’ gifts, and/or upfront payments, I’d be interested.

[Demitri_C]

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd sooner take the six point penalty and keep Grealish.

Six points and a reset isn't too bad.

If they follow through on it, we'll be one of about half of the Championship starting with a deduction, so we'd still be in with a decent shout.

 

Same. We would have a better points return if we kept grealish and mcginn with a minus six than have no points deduction and have neither player. 

They utterly bottled it. They waited for Blose to hit poor form so they can't get in the play offs and then took away enough points to keep them safe. 

It really is a utterly pathetic ffp system 

[DaveAV1]

3 hours ago, terrytini said:

So, if anyone knows ( knows, rather than ‘reckons’) how Clubs stand as regards people giving them ‘no strings’ gifts, and/or upfront payments, I’d be interested.

Hopefully a bloke called Purslow knows. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

To answer the post above regarding gifts. Putting it simply special rules apply to the owners, their associates and other companies connected to them.  If the EFL feels something is an abuse they can assign it a realistic market value. But if someone not connected to the club decided to pay £1000 for a simple shirt - that's fine. If a director paid £1000 it could be adjusted to £60. Get every player to sign it and it might be £1000.

Paying for 10 seasons in advance would not help.  It might be accounted over the 10 years period. Or its accounted in one year and then we lose the benefit for the next 9. 

[DaveAV1]

On 08/02/2019 at 07:17, av1 said:

It depends on where they finish imo because the EFL will want to portray strength whilst actually cowering behind the desk covering their eyes. 

If blues finish in a position whereby a points deduction will not effect their season (promotion/playoffs/relegation) they will be given a points deduction. 

If a points deduction does effect their season it will be a big fine. 

 

 

 

It seems like you were spot on. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

Well I am a lot less worried about FFP now. Thats it?

If you over spend and you get a points deduction that likely keeps you in the championship for another year. 

But you keep the players so any transfer fees were not wasted. 

Ok, sure, I can live with that.

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by ciggiesnbeer

[Vive_La_Villa]

49 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Same. We would have a better points return if we kept grealish and mcginn with a minus six than have no points deduction and have neither player. 

They utterly bottled it. They waited for Blose to hit poor form so they can't get in the play offs and then took away enough points to keep them safe. 

It really is a utterly pathetic ffp system 

They are going to be 6 points off playoffs while in horrible form. Plus going from playoff contenders to threatened with relegation in a few weeks is not going to help confidence. 

They are far from safe. 

Edit: I think any points deduction is a disgrace and fail to see how this is going to help a club get its finances in order.

i see they ignored a transfer embargo too. They’ve been shafted like we were by their owners. They just haven’t got a saviour.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[Mark Albrighton]

I think if blues can point to Redknapp and Zola and say “well it was them too”, then should we find ourselves in the same predicament we’ll be able to say “Yeah, but Dr T & Keith...”. That presumably would hold up more to scrutiny than blaming the previous  managers*.

*I was going to say “it would carry more weight” but I couldn’t face the inevitable deluge of Wyness weight related gags.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Shropshire Lad

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

They are going to be 6 points off playoffs while in horrible form. Plus going from playoff contenders to threatened with relegation in a few weeks is not going to help confidence. 

They are far from safe. 

Edit: I think any points deduction is a disgrace and fail to see how this is going to help a club get its finances in order.

i see they ignored a transfer embargo too. They’ve been shafted like we were by their owners. They just haven’t got a saviour.

Yes but Bolton and Ipswich are down so really blose are safe, the efl ensured that although it seems heavy it doesn’t have a impact on them. Also why are they now allowed to sign players again ? They should be a you can only buy once you sell.

why were they not punished fir turning down offers for Adams either ? The funny thing is I don’t think they will get as high a fee as they woul£ have in jan for Adams.

[Vive_La_Villa]

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Yes but Bolton and Ipswich are down so really blose are safe, the efl ensured that although it seems heavy it doesn’t have a impact on them. Also why are they now allowed to sign players again ? They should be a you can only buy once you sell.

why were they not punished fir turning down offers for Adams either ? The funny thing is I don’t think they will get as high a fee as they woul£ have in jan for Adams.

You can’t be upset that the punishment is lenient just because it’s the blues. FFP is a farce. They will come for us next.

[Pelle]

4 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

To answer the post above regarding gifts. Putting it simply special rules apply to the owners, their associates and other companies connected to them.  If the EFL feels something is an abuse they can assign it a realistic market value. But if someone not connected to the club decided to pay £1000 for a simple shirt - that's fine. If a director paid £1000 it could be adjusted to £60. Get every player to sign it and it might be £1000.

Paying for 10 seasons in advance would not help.  It might be accounted over the 10 years period. Or its accounted in one year and then we lose the benefit for the next 9. 

So if mr. Purslow gives me a simple job and simply say "Do this job and I'll pay you £40001000 if you then go in and buy a shirt signed by Grealish for £40m." that would be fine? And that's of course included that he can actually trust me. Genuine question, no matter how stupid it might seem.

[limpid]

Just now, Pelle said:

So if mr. Purslow gives me a simple job and simply say "Do this job and I'll pay you £40001000 if you then go in and buy a shirt signed by Grealish for £40m." that would be fine? And that's of course included that he can actually trust me. Genuine question, no matter how stupid it might seem.

You'll owe nearly £20m to the tax man.

[Troglodyte]

10 hours ago, Raymond said:

The only way to make money is to be in the PL and get some of the TV money. The only way to do that is spend.

I do get your point, but no it's not.

[OutByEaster?]

For me the problem the league is making for itself is that the £13m a year loss figure is too tight for the division - the figure has stayed the same for the last five years - wages and fees haven't. Most of the teams in the top six are exceeding that, many of them comfortably, and we're approaching a time where the majority of teams in the division will be hitting that figure. 

There's then a particular and peculiar problem with the relegated teams. The money they get in the Premier league is extraordinary, and the parachute payments they receive when they're first relegated are huge; they make them the richest teams in the division. But they're not enough. Albion this year came down with a wage bill that's been difficult to support even with the parachute payments - they've no chance of achieving a £13m loss this season and they've had to borrow against next years parachute money in order to continue to operate properly this season - if they don't go up, they're in very deep trouble. 

Premier league wage bills need Premier league money and the £41.5m parachute payment isn't enough to cover it sufficiently to meet the £13m ELF loss limit.

There are ways you can solve that - bigger parachute payments for example, but then you're handing an even larger advantage to teams that are relegated, you could maybe allow special dispensation for larger losses to teams that have been relegated, and maintain those more generous levels for five years - but neither of those are really suitable. The team can solve the problem themselves to a degree with a post relegation fire sale - getting rid of as many players as they can in the summer they're relegated - but that means accepting cheap offers and devaluing assets - it doesn't help club's accounts.

Going the other way, it's worse - Fulham spent nearly £200m this summer on a team that can't compete at Premier league level - they're coming straight back down and into a world of financial trouble. They lost over £20m in their promotion season and they've doubled their wage bill since. 

More than that, there's the situation for clubs like ours where it's not that we don't have the money, it's that we're not allowed to invest it - for me any owner that's prepared to put money into a football club should be allowed to, in so long as he's not saddling the club with a debt or any future problem - it's completely unhelpful to have a rule that doesn't allow for an owner to "gift" money to a football club. How can money going into a club with no strings attached be a threat to the long term survival of football clubs?

Wolves lost £80m in the two seasons prior to promotion and yet I believe they're a well run club - the EFL would be giving them six point deduction next season.

It's a mess, one that has the potential for a relegated club to have £41.5m from the Premier league and almost go bust, one that has billionaires unable to invest in the EFL because of EFL rules and most importantly one that has clubs punished for being unable to meet a target for losses that's within a range that you could easily describe as entirely normal for a club seeking promotion from the division.

The gap between the divisions has grown too large financially and the noose of £13m a season is too tight on those teams that can afford to try to breach it. Of course we want to protect clubs from going bust, but there are other ways to measure that - debt ratios and the like. What we have at the moment is a mess and needs looking at again.

 

[richp999]

The net loss figure is too low - however you could argue that if the whole point of FFP is to stop clubs going bust - then the net loss should be 0.

Ideally the rule should allow the owner to input as much as they want over the season to balance the books.

If an owner wants to input 100 million over a championship season so what ? (And I mean 'gifted' to the club, not loaned etc..)

So long as the liabilities are covered then there is no risk to the club.

The rules should allow an owner to spend whatever they like, but when purchasing an asset (a player) then they should be required to move the transfer fee and all wages and costs for the length of the contract into some kind of escrow account.

That way whatever they spend / whoever they sign it'll all be covered and no long term risk to the club.

But we all know what the FFP rules are really for, and its not to stop a club going bust.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by richp999

[Vive_La_Villa]

After what happened last year I don’t trust any owners or CEO. We can see the accounts and they are clearly breaching FFP rules. So surely it’s only a matter of time before we are next to be punished.  I don’t care how rich and powerful our owners are or how in the know Purslow is. It won’t make a difference.

If we don’t get promoted I guess we can sell assets such as Grealish to balance the books.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, richp999 said:

But we all know what the FFP rules are really for, and its not to stop a club going bust.

 

I think in the EFL that's the intention. Different for the UEFA competitions one.

I agree with @OutByEaster? above. The rules are to a degree behind the reality, for the EFL, particularly with prem teams dropping down, now. Though you could argue that (to an extent) teams are not doing all they could to comply.

As much as there's a huge gap between the Prem clubs and the EFL clubs, the same kind of applies within the division - some clubs are hugely more able to raise revenue than others. Well run clubs tend to prosper, regardless of the rules, badly run clubs at some point fal foul of them, There's an aspect of reckless owners leading to failure to meet the rules. There are few if any consistently well run clubs falling foul of them, and I think that's key point, really. Blues has not been well run. Villa wasn't well run, ditto QPR a while back and so on. Blaming the rules when bad ownership and running of clubs is a key problem is a mistake, I think. Bolton has been badly run, and they're in serious trouble with going bust. Even despite the rules, they're struggling, but they are the exception compared to a few years ago when many clubs were in danger of being wound up - several a season, quite often. The rules have had a positive impact in many regards, but they do need revisiting.

Another issue os that if you're Villa (say) with a wealthy ownership quite willing to spend their own money to support a club's spending, then a small loss limit seems harsh. But if you're Burton, with no wealthy benefactor, you'd say "how come they're allowed to lose gazillions and we're unable to o the same?" Law of the jungle? maybe, but from Burton's perspective it's not a level playing field, so they'd vote against increasing, or removing the limits. We'd do the same in their shoes.

[danceoftheshamen]

The big issue I have with all this ffp nonsense is that there are some glaring issues which are being totally ignored. 

It’s all well and good saying Burton and small teams like that don’t think it’s fair that bigger clubs can invest more etc but what about the overall good of the game in all this? 

The history of Avfc and global fan base does mean Villa is a huge club and one of the founding pillars of World football and it has taken over a century to build. Surely to goodness it’s only normal that a club with so many people supporting it and such a prestigious history should be able to invest more than a team like Burton! They earned the right over 150 years for goodness sake! 

It is important for the good of the game that the famous clubs “provided its sustainable and done in a way so as not to threaten its existence” are leading the game, otherwise you risk destroying the game in my opinion. 

So it’s only flipping right that AVFC, who attracted Billionaire owners because of these very reasons... the huge fan base, the history, the stadium etc etc should be allowed to spend more than say Burton Albion ( no offence to Burton) who struggle to fill a 6k stadium and have never won anything!! 

Surely to goodness anyone can see that? 

Same for Leeds, Forest etc they absolutely should be able to spend more than Smaller clubs... it’s the law of the jungle

this is how it is in the Premier League too

clubs like Man City, united, Liverpool, Chelsea etc will spend more than Watford, Bournemouth, Palace etc because they can. 

If you have a rule for one division it surely has to be the same all through, put in safety measures of course but there has to be a better way than the farce that is FFP 

[richp999]

Very true, but there are key problems with the current set of rules, that clearly mean they don't do what they intend to.. Or to put it another way, prove to me that they are there to prevent (or make it very difficult for) rich owners to break into the Premier league and properly challenge the top 6.

1) If they are there to prevent clubs going bust, or become badly run, then the loss limit would be zero. 

Remember this is An operating loss which is allowed, and will be added to the net debt every year. 

A loss limit of x million, whatever it is, will still see the clubs debt growing and growing over time. 

If it were to prevent clubs going bust, either a net loss of zero, or a limit on total debt would be required. 

2) Owners cannot inject cash. 

All revenue needs to be just that, and you can't just sponsor a ground for £500 million anymore, because man city did that and the powers that be didn't like it. 

If the league don't like what you're trying to claim as revenue they just exclude it. 

Why would this be a rule if your intent was to stop the club going bust?

If anything you could force the club to set aside the cost of any recruitment /contract for the term of the contract, thus preventing anyone going bust. 

Do this and set a total debt level, and it'd do the job. 

Anyone can invest as much as they like, as long as they can pay for it. 

 

This is where we are stuck.. We may well have the third richest owners in English football, but even if they want to they can't spend it. 

Im sure I heard a soundbite once from one of the people in charge of the Premier league, and they said they really wanted the Premier league top 6 to remain the same each year, because it was hard to market a league worldwide when a bunch of Chinese fans invest in Liverpool, then next year find them bottom of the league. This would put them off the Premier league altogether. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by richp999