The AVFC FFP thread

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

There is.

That's not an FFP issue as such. Academy spending is exempt from FFP, presumably the idea being that if a club is developing the players then they aren't spending a fortune to buy them- most will cost little to nothing (on a relative scale). However clubs attempting to horde as much young talent and then extort teams who want to loan one and using their academy status as a way to milk money from players they have no intention of using in the first team is an issue.

As an example Tomas Kalas is Chelsea's longest serving player, and has a total of 2 league appearences in 9 years. In that time they've charged a loan fee of at least £1-2m to Bristol City, Fulham (twice), Middlesbrough (twice) , FC Koln and possibly another team or two, as well as getting the club's to contribute to his wages which would be above what any of those clubs would have been paying at the time of him joining.

There's no intention of Chelsea using Kalas as a first teamer and since signing his last contract with them he has said he feels "like a training cone, moved around to wherever the club wants".

Thankfully there is a rule change coming in which I believe is limiting the amount of over 21* year old players a club can send out on loan.

 

*Might be over 23, as that's the max age for a 'Young player' award.

It is for me simply because your signing all the best young players then all the good ones they charge astronomical fees and we can't sign any due to ffp. 

That rule stinks and I do hope they reatrix the amount of players you are allowed to loan out. It's a complete unfair advantage. 

Personally I think we are better getting a point deduction and keep grealish and McGinn. Even with a point deduction I think we would be one of the best teams in the league next season. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It is for me simply because your signing all the best young players then all the good ones they charge astronomical fees and we can't sign any due to ffp. 

That rule stinks and I do hope they reatrix the amount of players you are allowed to loan out. It's a complete unfair advantage. 

Personally I think we are better getting a point deduction and keep grealish and McGinn. Even with a point deduction I think we would be one of the best teams in the league next season. 

I doubt the punishments will be capped to 9 points if there becomes a complete disregard of the rules.

edit: falling foul of the EFL is not the way to do things. We need to work with them which it seems Purslow is doing.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I doubt the punishments will be capped to 9 points if there becomes a complete disregard of the rules.

But Blose did worse and got only 9 points. They signed players when they were not allowed so they will have no basis to give us a larger point deduction. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

But Blose did worse and got only 9 points. They signed players when they were not allowed so they will have no basis to give us a larger point deduction. 

As mentioned in my edit it’s not the way to do things. 

Totally ignoring FFP rules thinking that it will only be a 9 point deduction is basis enough to increase it in my opinion.  

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

As mentioned in my edit it’s not the way to do things. 

Totally ignoring FFP rules thinking that it will only be a 9 point deduction is basis enough to increase it in my opinion.  

It's nit really ignoring though. We can just say we did not feel the offers were what the player was worth. We would seriously have. A massive case if they deducted us more points than Blose do. Edns, purslow and sawris don't see the kind of guys that play around so they won't take it lying down. 

[HeyAnty]

20 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Fair. Happy to have my mind changed as well. Whether FFP is a partial solution to the problems football have or an entirely wrong solutionis an interesting discussion.

 

Only club close to going into liquidation at the minute is Bolton. Who are not remotely close to breaking FFP. 

If you can’t pay the bills then throw the book at the club otherwise keep the nose out. 

FFP is only to keep the status Quo and let the richer get richer and the poorer poorer.

[HeyAnty]

And to the list of clubs that were listed previously, that went into Administration, how many of them failed to exist now? None! They all got punished and rightly so. 

Whats wrong is punishing a club who has money just because another club doesn’t.

[ThunderPower_14]

1 hour ago, HeyAnty said:

And to the list of clubs that were listed previously, that went into Administration, how many of them failed to exist now? None! They all got punished and rightly so. 

Whats wrong is punishing a club who has money just because another club doesn’t.

Imagine winning the lottery and being told you can only spend a percentage of what you earn annually because sometimes people win the lottery and spend irresponsibly and run into financial trouble.

A soft cap type solution is the answer here, with the further a team goes over the cap, the more thoroughly they have to show how they can afford to cover all their liabilities.

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, HeyAnty said:

FFP is only to keep the status Quo

But you can't just do Whatever You Want, and Break The Rules, or What You're Proposing will lead to you going Down Down. You just have to Roll Over, Lay Down, Again And Again. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

We all know FFP was bought in to prevent another Man City or Chelsea.  Many deem what they did to now be the clubs they are they are as unfair so now we have this ruling to prevent it happening again. 

Protecting clubs is nothing to do with it imo. The clues in the ‘fair play’ part of the title.

[KMitch]

From the outside looking in on clubs going bankrupt, it looks like problems arise when they get into a situation where the club does not have enough cash available to pay all their bills every month for the whole season.  Clubs that overspend build up monthly expenses which far exceed their monthly incomes and require their owners to continually inject funds into the club to keep the lights on and the staff paid, never mind the transfer fees to buy new players.  When owners either run out of funds or make a conscious decision to stop paying for the club's bloated expenses from out of their own pockets is when the administration talk starts.  The main problem with FFP is that it don't protect clubs from this situation and only put caps on how much a club can lose over a 3 year period, regardless of the owner's cash injections.  Look at the situation we found ourselves in last year.  Villa were compliant with FFP but our owner was paying for all our expenses out of his own pocket.  When that cash stream was turned off, we quickly struggled to pay all our bills and found ourselves in a bad spot within a few months.  This is the exact same situation Bolton was in this season.  Their owner stopped putting his own money into the club, the club ran out of cash, and the owner was forced to sell to a shady figure.  

FFP needs to be changed to allow owners to invest as much money as they would like into their clubs at the start of the season, but clubs must prove that:

• They have enough cash on hand to pay all their expenses for the season
• Or, that their monthly income is higher than their expenses, without their owner providing regular outside cash injections

Without either of those being met, clubs need to have a hard incoming transfer embargo placed on them until the problems are resolved.  If they still aren't resolved at the start of the season, a league appointed "Financial Administrator" should take control of the club and sort the situation out by whatever means necessary (eg bank loans, additional sponsorships, player sales, or if all other options are off the table, force the owner to sell shares/all of the club).

[Vive_La_Villa]

6 minutes ago, KMitch said:

From the outside looking in on clubs going bankrupt, it looks like problems arise when they get into a situation where the club does not have enough cash available to pay all their bills every month for the whole season.  Clubs that overspend build up monthly expenses which far exceed their monthly incomes and require their owners to continually inject funds into the club to keep the lights on and the staff paid, never mind the transfer fees to buy new players.  When owners either run out of funds or make a conscious decision to stop paying for the club's bloated expenses from out of their own pockets is when the administration talk starts.  The main problem with FFP is that it don't protect clubs from this situation and only put caps on how much a club can lose over a 3 year period, regardless of the owner's cash injections.  Look at the situation we found ourselves in last year.  Villa were compliant with FFP but our owner was paying for all our expenses out of his own pocket.  When that cash stream was turned off, we quickly struggled to pay all our bills and found ourselves in a bad spot within a few months.  This is the exact same situation Bolton was in this season.  Their owner stopped putting his own money into the club, the club ran out of cash, and the owner was forced to sell to a shady figure.  

FFP needs to be changed to allow owners to invest as much money as they would like into their clubs at the start of the season, but clubs must prove that:

• They have enough cash on hand to pay all their expenses for the season
• Or, that their monthly income is higher than their expenses, without their owner providing regular outside cash injections

Without either of those being met, clubs need to have a hard incoming transfer embargo placed on them until the problems are resolved.  If they still aren't resolved at the start of the season, a league appointed "Financial Administrator" should take control of the club and sort the situation out by whatever means necessary (eg bank loans, additional sponsorships, player sales, or if all other options are off the table, force the owner to sell shares/all of the club).

Tony Xia wasn’t injecting his own funds. He was using parachute payments and loans against the parachute payments.  Guy was a pure fraud! 

Edit: I agree with the rest of your post.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[Dave-R]

Sounds like some are saying were desperate for money, can't be that bad when you spend 7 million on a keeper can it.

I don't think we're that bad, if Purslow says were working within FFP, I have to believe the man is doing what is needed to keep us right.

We have Nicola ibbettson as well, another who has been apart of many money generating schemes for the club's she worked for.

I have faith in the people our Owners have pulled in to do the job of sorting the mess out that we were in. I believe that the Owners will say no to selling anyone we deem to be a major part of Villas revival, they are not here to make money, they don't need it at all..

[GENTLEMAN]

I think spending within our means (satisfying FFP) and being successful are not mutually exclusive concepts. Indeed, at this level it is clear that transfer fee/wage paid is not tightly correlated to success of a player. I think these 2 variables become more associated at the very top level. 

For me, approaching the challenge with prudence and efficiency and then succeeding feels like ‘winning better’. The thought of silly transfer fees and a bloated wage-bill, containing players that are not contributing, makes me very uneasy. Whilst a small efficient squad, with each player playing a part, fills me with tranquility.

[OutByEaster?]

I think we'll be in the business of the things that are used as FFP workarounds - stuff that's entirely within the rules, but completely against their supposed intention. I wouldn't be surprised to see us selling our ground to our owners who return it for popcorn rent and claiming the money as income for FFP purposes. 

[S-Platt]

Must have been mentioned somewhere but we are due a large sum of compensation money from HS2 that could be substantial.  Hopefully helps balance the books.

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think we'll be in the business of the things that are used as FFP workarounds - stuff that's entirely within the rules, but completely against their supposed intention. I wouldn't be surprised to see us selling our ground to our owners who return it for popcorn rent and claiming the money as income for FFP purposes. 

I hope not. Pretty much every club who have separated ownership of the ground from the club have ended in disaster. 

[Nigel]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think we'll be in the business of the things that are used as FFP workarounds - stuff that's entirely within the rules, but completely against their supposed intention. I wouldn't be surprised to see us selling our ground to our owners who return it for popcorn rent and claiming the money as income for FFP purposes. 

Steve Gibson's dog will have to go into hiding!

[thejoker]

I was thinking about the Derby situation earlier (the owner buying Pride Park and leasing it back). Would there be anything to stop our owners doing the same, but then sell Villa Park back to the club for £1? 

It would certainly be a good way to get around FFP if we stay in The Championship for the next few years.

I’m sure Steve Gibson would approve.

[OutByEaster?]

3 hours ago, S-Platt said:

Must have been mentioned somewhere but we are due a large sum of compensation money from HS2 that could be substantial.  Hopefully helps balance the books.

I might be wrong, but I think we've already had that. I think it's been included in the last FFP period.