The AVFC FFP thread

[Dave-R]

14 hours ago, terrytini said:

At midnight the day Richards leaves I’m going to make a nice cup of tea, and sit down and watch clips of all his decent moments for us, and have a silent contemplation of all he’s done for us. 

Then ill wait while the kettle finishes boiling and enjoy my cuppa.

You might just get a way with filling the kettle up..

[fightoffyour]

5 hours ago, villarocker said:

(2 x 35) + (1 x 13) = 83 

Brackets please, for the love of McGrath!

Edited March 26, 2019 by fightoffyour

[alreadyexists]

[TheStagMan]

6 hours ago, villarocker said:

2 X 35 + 1 X 13 = 83 

Hi Dr Tony. 

[mikeyjavfc]

I have just caught up with the Price of Football blog post, I thought this detail was interesting:

"Being so close to the limit does also mean that Villa (and other clubs which are too close to the FFP naughty step for comfort) will have had to submit regular monthly financial reports to the EFL to ensure they are compliant with P&S rules for the present season."

If we have been submitting monthly financial reports to the EFL all season, then I wouldn't have thought we'd be in breach of FFP this season? Unless the report just says: "not compliant again, D'oh!" every month. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said:

I have just caught up with the Price of Football blog post, I thought this detail was interesting:

"Being so close to the limit does also mean that Villa (and other clubs which are too close to the FFP naughty step for comfort) will have had to submit regular monthly financial reports to the EFL to ensure they are compliant with P&S rules for the present season."

If we have been submitting monthly financial reports to the EFL all season, then I wouldn't have thought we'd be in breach of FFP this season? Unless the report just says: "not compliant again, D'oh!" every month. 

We must be compliant for the current season...I know, seems unlikely.

[Czechlad]

I don't understand anything that is going on

[mrjc]

23 hours ago, leighavfc said:

Kieran Maguire was on WM tonight answering callers questions about FFP.

Forgive me if i have this wrong but an interesting point he made that i hadnt heard before was that for the first 2 seasons down losses are counted at premier league rate i.e 35 million a season. Our third year would then be counted at championship rate of 13mil. Overall 73 million in losses allowed for us. 

That would make sense as to why the club seem to think they are ok. He also said that we were 2.5 million above the line upto last accounts so it sounds like our losses for this season need to show no more than 15.5 million. 

I could have got this wrong though guys but if i have understood that right then ot would explain Purslows comments previously etc

 

This isn't quite right unfortunately.  Basically, they allow £35m of losses for each year a club was in the PL, and then £13m for each year a club has been in the Championship.  So in our first year down, we were allowed to have lost £83m ((2x£35m) + (1x£13m)) in the three years up to that point.  This season, given it's our third year down, we are only allowed to have lost £39m (3 x £13m) in the last three seasons.

From what Swiss Ramble said a couple of weeks ago, it sort of ties up with what a few (seemingly informed) people said in the summer - that we would likely 'breach' the test by quite a lot this year - c£25m, from memory.  Sadly, he also said that one legitimate way around this is to sell Grealish in the summer...the FFP small print allowing "post year-end sale proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses". 

[leighavfc]

58 minutes ago, mrjc said:

This isn't quite right unfortunately.  Basically, they allow £35m of losses for each year a club was in the PL, and then £13m for each year a club has been in the Championship.  So in our first year down, we were allowed to have lost £83m ((2x£35m) + (1x£13m)) in the three years up to that point.  This season, given it's our third year down, we are only allowed to have lost £39m (3 x £13m) in the last three seasons.

From what Swiss Ramble said a couple of weeks ago, it sort of ties up with what a few (seemingly informed) people said in the summer - that we would likely 'breach' the test by quite a lot this year - c£25m, from memory.  Sadly, he also said that one legitimate way around this is to sell Grealish in the summer...the FFP small print allowing "post year-end sale proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses". 

Yeah i guessed i was wrong right i get it now! 

So its up or bye bye Jack then really... tbf we have all known this was probably the most likely scenario. I read a figure of 29 million failure somewhere.. guessing we will get 30 mil + for him and that will be that. And to be fair it would work in all parties favour. God i hope we get up now lol

Certainly ramps the pressure up a notch going into these last 8 games! 

 

[mikeyp102]

2 hours ago, mrjc said:

This isn't quite right unfortunately.  Basically, they allow £35m of losses for each year a club was in the PL, and then £13m for each year a club has been in the Championship.  So in our first year down, we were allowed to have lost £83m ((2x£35m) + (1x£13m)) in the three years up to that point.  This season, given it's our third year down, we are only allowed to have lost £39m (3 x £13m) in the last three seasons.

From what Swiss Ramble said a couple of weeks ago, it sort of ties up with what a few (seemingly informed) people said in the summer - that we would likely 'breach' the test by quite a lot this year - c£25m, from memory.  Sadly, he also said that one legitimate way around this is to sell Grealish in the summer...the FFP small print allowing "post year-end sale proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses". 

Not singularing you out (so hopefully someone knows the answer), but why do people rely on Swissramble? Who are they? How do we know they are right? 

 

From what i read, we are fine with FFP. We recently purchased a £7m keeper, we purchased a highly sought after French RB (and loaned him back to the club), we seemingly have an option to but Hause and for me  (I’m not ITK, just my feeling on him), it looks like Mings will sign. Our manager has made Jack captain and says he is the long term future of the club. Our CEO (who was part of the ffp committee), says we don’t have to go up his year and that we need to go up correctly. None of this screams to me are we have any concerns over ffp and they we now for once have a plan in place (which includes not selling jack,  unless a ridiculous offer, or he submits a transfer request). Now of course we’ve been fooled before bybthose in charge, but personally  not worried. 

[mrjc]

1 hour ago, leighavfc said:

Yeah i guessed i was wrong right i get it now! 

So its up or bye bye Jack then really... tbf we have all known this was probably the most likely scenario. I read a figure of 29 million failure somewhere.. guessing we will get 30 mil + for him and that will be that. And to be fair it would work in all parties favour. God i hope we get up now lol

Certainly ramps the pressure up a notch going into these last 8 games! 

 

Yep, agreed.

Although...not to put more bad news on it...but even if we get promoted, we will still have maybe failed the test for our time in the Championship (if we don't sell Jack).  Previous clubs have done that, got promoted and it's been ignored (not close to the detail, but I think Bournemouth, Brighton, Leicester maybe).  But I think now the PL has said it will work with the EFL to put sanctions on clubs...so it may even be that we need to sell him even if we get promoted.  I guess they'd basically be saying that you can't gain an unfair advantage by spending loads to get promoted, without there being some punishment.  That's a bit of an unknown though, so hopefully I'm wrong!

[mrjc]

3 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

Not singularing you out (so hopefully someone knows the answer), but why do people rely on Swissramble? Who are they? How do we know they are right? 

 

From what i read, we are fine with FFP. We recently purchased a £7m keeper, we purchased a highly sought after French RB (and loaned him back to the club), we seemingly have an option to but Hause and for me  (I’m not ITK, just my feeling on him), it looks like Mings will sign. Our manager has made Jack captain and says he is the long term future of the club. Our CEO (who was part of the ffp committee), says we don’t have to go up his year and that we need to go up correctly. None of this screams to me are we have any concerns over ffp and they we now for once have a plan in place (which includes not selling jack,  unless a ridiculous offer, or he submits a transfer request). Now of course we’ve been fooled before bybthose in charge, but personally  not worried. 

No probs.

Honestly, he might be wrong.  But I've read up on the rules a fair bit myself (not to the same level of detail as him), and have a finance background, and what he says / writes makes a lot of sense to my understanding of how it works.  That said, it's only based on publicly available information, so don't have the full picture - and in fairness, he doesn't claim to be ITK, he just analyses what is available to us all, including reading FFP small print!

Re the rest of it....I had struggled to understand why we didn't need to sell Jack last summer, to be compliant for this season....and then was even more confused when we signed Bolasie and Tammy in particular, given the wages.  I don't actually think the January moves will make that much difference to this season's numbers...the £7m transfer fee doesn't totally hit our profit this year, and while we have Mings / Hause, we have sent some more out on loan and returned some loans.  The only thing that has made sense to me, as to how we can avoid a breach this season, is the theory about having to sell Jack post-season, and put it towards this season's losses.  Obviously I hope this is wrong and there's something big we're missing...but sadly not sure what that is...

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, mrjc said:

This isn't quite right unfortunately.  Basically, they allow £35m of losses for each year a club was in the PL, and then £13m for each year a club has been in the Championship.  So in our first year down, we were allowed to have lost £83m ((2x£35m) + (1x£13m)) in the three years up to that point.  This season, given it's our third year down, we are only allowed to have lost £39m (3 x £13m) in the last three seasons.

From what Swiss Ramble said a couple of weeks ago, it sort of ties up with what a few (seemingly informed) people said in the summer - that we would likely 'breach' the test by quite a lot this year - c£25m, from memory.  Sadly, he also said that one legitimate way around this is to sell Grealish in the summer...the FFP small print allowing "post year-end sale proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses". 

Going back to Kieran Maguire's tweets and blog, he has the figure at £61m, i.e. £35m for 15/16 and £13m for each of 16/17 and 17/18.

This season, i.e. 18/19, is indeed our third season, so next year's max loss figure would be the £39m.

Going on that chap's careful analysis, this would allow something like a £7m loss (as our carryover would be £32m of losses from the previous two years).

It may be a tough ask.

[terrytini]

I just keep coming back to Purslow.

He was there when they wrote the rules. He says we are ok.

In my simple mind, if we aren’t ok, that makes him a liar, or a fool.

It would also - presumably - mean the Owners happily invested in a sinking ship.

Call me naive, and I know we’ve all been “ bitten” before, but I can’t see it.

I just wonder why, if we ARE ok, why they can’t say how come.

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

I just keep coming back to Purslow.

He was there when they wrote the rules. He says we are ok.

In my simple mind, if we aren’t ok, that makes him a liar, or a fool.

It would also - presumably - mean the Owners happily invested in a sinking ship.

Call me naive, and I know we’ve all been “ bitten” before, but I can’t see it.

I just wonder why, if we ARE ok, why they can’t say how come.

Same for me. Our owners plus Purslow are not idiots. They arent Dr. FRAUD or Wyness I am 1000 % sure they know what they are doing

[mrjc]

6 hours ago, terrytini said:

I just keep coming back to Purslow.

He was there when they wrote the rules. He says we are ok.

In my simple mind, if we aren’t ok, that makes him a liar, or a fool.

It would also - presumably - mean the Owners happily invested in a sinking ship.

Call me naive, and I know we’ve all been “ bitten” before, but I can’t see it.

I just wonder why, if we ARE ok, why they can’t say how come.

I agree, I think he's credible and he knows what he's doing.  I doubt they are lying about it, or just hoping we'll be okay.

But...other than signing a new contract (which we know can be done to help manage a selling price), I don't think there's been any guarantee of not selling JG this summer, although I could easily have missed this.

So the most feasible outcome I know of...based on the publicly available information, what seems like the size of the gap, and being able to avoid a breach...is that we do have to sell him this summer.  That would be consistent with Purslow saying we are okay, would have made sense last summer when we could turn Spurs down, and would make more sense of our continued spending, knowing we had a £25m+ pure profit up our sleeve that we are technically allowed to put towards this season's losses.

Obviously I hope it's not, and that Purslow has some better way up his sleeve - I just have no idea, and have seen no real suggestion, of what that might be.

[OutByEaster?]

Since I found out that we saved £45m from our losses by revaluing Villa Park in the year we came down, I'm more convinced that there are spaces in FFP for accountancy chicanery to prevent unwanted player sales. I'm not convinced that the rules will still be the same when the current accounting period is erm...accounted for, and I have no idea how we'll make it through this financial year and pass FFP, but I won't be too surprised if we find a way that doesn't involve having to sell Grealish.

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

I think Grealish is gone in the summer if we don’t go up regardless of FFP. He needs to be playing in the Premier League for the sake of his career. 

[mrjc]

10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Since I found out that we saved £45m from our losses by revaluing Villa Park in the year we came down, I'm more convinced that there are spaces in FFP for accountancy chicanery to prevent unwanted player sales. I'm not convinced that the rules will still be the same when the current accounting period is erm...accounted for, and I have no idea how we'll make it through this financial year and pass FFP, but I won't be too surprised if we find a way that doesn't involve having to sell Grealish.

 

Let's hope so.

I guess the difference with that £45m is that (a) you could tell from the accounts that something had happened, as it showed up as a huge exceptional item, which we haven't had since and (b) it made our losses bigger before we could 'save' it, if that makes sense, so didn't really help the underlying position. 

There is obviously stuff we don't know though, so I hope you're right

[Demitri_C]

Can I just say as well we have massively taken steps to address ffp, I think that will help. Also if blose got nine points for all tgei4 breaches I dint think the punishment will be as high a# that. If it’s 3-4 points I’d rather keep grealish and mcginn take the hit as I think we walk the league next year with those two.

the only question I have Would a fine go towards our ffp record finances?