Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

The bit I do not understand with FFP .....I don't understand most of it to be honest other than strapping the successful clubs to success......The man city owners knew exactly what they was doing and ours were naive in knowing what was coming.

  • is it a permanent tourniquet or is it something that you can escape from in time?
  • does it follow on season after season?......is there a reducing balance?
  • When and how can we realistically get shut of it.?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I dont quite understand about ffp is this:

Say we are borderline but on the good side, we then sell Hogan for 5mill (is a 7mill loss on the 12mill figure.).

We buy or pay a 1mill loan fee for a player and pay him the same wages (just fir calculation sake) who bangs em in for fun or not.

Is it the correct calculation that says

1. a 12mill asset sold at 5mill creates a further loss of 7mill which is added to our „loss“ figure thus takes us over the ffp borderline into the bad side

2. Our new 1mill players value as an asset does not increase regardless if he bangs em in or not. a profit will only incurr IF A, he‘s bought for 1mill sold for more (decreasing our losses?) or B, said parent club are happy with our „development“ of their player and reward us 5million for doing so (not that it would happen)

My point is, once an outlay is made regardless if it keeps us within or pushes us over the ffp legal line, the successful or unsuccessful performances dont come into the calculation untill he‘s either (bought) -> sold (loan) -> we are rewarded.

?????

If so

Selling Hogan for an amount less than we paid for him is pointless because that loss effectively increases our overall loss.

Does anyone know enough about ffp to explain either way? please -> thanx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I don't know how wolves have got away with spending big money with less resources than us and no implications 

Any such fines or penalties wouldn't come during this season surely?

They have started spending big in the last 2 seasons, but I think it's counted over 3 seasons and before this they had among the very lowest salaries and outlays in the whole league.

Should they fail to go up the will likely be in some trouble, if they go up they are probably fine.

Calculated gamble by their owners.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I don't know how wolves have got away with spending big money with less resources than us and no implications 

I think and emphasize think, its the c100 mill we spent in 2 summers on players who in the main added no value during  Tim Sherwood & RDM's reign.

Not blaming them, others were involved ....... just saying it was during that time, I think that has caused the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grasshopper said:

What I dont quite understand about ffp is this:

Say we are borderline but on the good side, we then sell Hogan for 5mill (is a 7mill loss on the 12mill figure.).

We buy or pay a 1mill loan fee for a player and pay him the same wages (just fir calculation sake) who bangs em in for fun or not.

Is it the correct calculation that says

1. a 12mill asset sold at 5mill creates a further loss of 7mill which is added to our „loss“ figure thus takes us over the ffp borderline into the bad side

2. Our new 1mill players value as an asset does not increase regardless if he bangs em in or not. a profit will only incurr IF A, he‘s bought for 1mill sold for more (decreasing our losses?) or B, said parent club are happy with our „development“ of their player and reward us 5million for doing so (not that it would happen)

My point is, once an outlay is made regardless if it keeps us within or pushes us over the ffp legal line, the successful or unsuccessful performances dont come into the calculation untill he‘s either (bought) -> sold (loan) -> we are rewarded.

?????

If so

Selling Hogan for an amount less than we paid for him is pointless because that loss effectively increases our overall loss.

Does anyone know enough about ffp to explain either way? please -> thanx

Hogans fee would’ve been spread across his contract. So say £10m is £2m a season over 5 years don’t think it was that’s high but. Then if you sell him for £5m that’s goes on the balance sheet for that year so in effect you’re up for the year but down overall. That’s what I read but like most FFP is baffling and if you’re creative can be sorted out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dn1982 said:

Hogans fee would’ve been spread across his contract. So say £10m is £2m a season over 5 years don’t think it was that’s high but. Then if you sell him for £5m that’s goes on the balance sheet for that year so in effect you’re up for the year but down overall. That’s what I read but like most FFP is baffling and if you’re creative can be sorted out. 

So basically its risk to reward or bust depending on promotion or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

What I can't get my head around is how a french club in a very poor league can spend 300m on one player while we're not even allowed to buy a pot to piss in. 

Well to begin with those are different FFP's are they not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

All stems from the same shitty UEFA directive doesn't it?

or are you talking about an FFP I need to google urban dictionary for?

There is the UEFA one which applies to the European cups, and the English FA one that applies to the PL and one for the Championship.

Sure they have one in France too.

Different rules.

Edit: PSG are of course not allowed to  spend what they did hence why Neymar was "bought out by Qatar" and M'Bappé is a "loan"

Rich and powerful clubs will always be allowed to break the rules.

Edited by sne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sne said:

There is the UEFA one which applies to the European cups, and the English FA one that applies to the PL and one for the Championship.

Sure they have one in France too.

Different rules.

Edit: PSG are of course not allowed to  spend what they did hence why Neymar was "bought out by Qatar" and M'Bappé is a "loan"

Rich and powerful clubs will always be allowed to break the rules.

Makes me sick. Puts me off football. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that Chelski, Citeh, Real and PSG (probably others too) have „creative methods“ to get around ffp by investment through sponsorship.

Am I being too far fetched (or off the radar) to think something along the lines of the following example.

Say, for instance, Benteke became available. Palace would want a fee to reinvest in other players. Say 15mill fee and Benteke would want 80kpw plus bonuses. (call it 100kpw) 100kpw for the remaining 25 weeks (or so) till 01.06.2018 (would it be our cut off for the last year of the 3 -or is it another date?)

We‘re talking an immediate outlay of 15mill spread over 5years = 3mill per year (immortation ?)

So if we refurbish the Holte End toilets and call them „The Recon Waste Management facilities“ for an initial outlay of say 20mill ( the true cost for the modern crappers being 5mill) with running/maintenance costs of 101kpw (bog-roll cant be that expensive plus a few flushes of grade C water from Perry Hall park) surely we have not accrued a loss, and, an Income has covered an expenditure.

or is it not that simple.

Hey, why not have the best bogs in the world. A tourist attraction with the slogan „Shit like a King - Shit at the Villa“

Edited by Grasshopper
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

What I can't get my head around is how a french club in a very poor league can spend 300m on one player while we're not even allowed to buy a pot to piss in. 

They are owned by the Richest Country in the world.

Thats how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

What I can't get my head around is how a french club in a very poor league can spend 300m on one player while we're not even allowed to buy a pot to piss in. 

Technically Neymar was also a free transfer, he bought himself out of his contract with Barcelona (albeit with Qatari cash).

Edited by DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

They are owned by the Richest Country in the world.

Thats how.

 

3 hours ago, DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth said:

Technically Neymar was also a free transfer, he bought himself out of his contract with Barcelona (albeit with Qatari cash).

It's time they renamed it Financial Unfair Play.

If you're punished for breaching it you can say you've been FUPed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â