Jump to content

The AVFC FFP thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, blandy said:

ANd also last season we obviously got more telly money for being 11th, not 17th. Which may well help.

Correct, although that would be offset by improved wages of mings, mcginn,konsa and target. Plus all the new  signings. I would still expect us to be in "top" 3 unfortunately 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

I would still expect us to be in "top" 3 unfortunately 

I'd guess slightly outside that. Palace, Southampton, Everton, Leicester, maybe Villa 5th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

@villa4europe @blandy

Latest published wages to revenue ratios courtesy to Swiss ramble below.

We are not looking good and would be one of the first teams punished if salary cap was to be introduced.

5EBC2A79-D413-4B57-956D-BDD4B6567033.jpeg.6a2794a70f614852e056df042a5a6d25.jpeg

Bear in mind that  revenue values are affected by covid, so the ratios are likely to drop now for everyone once stadiums are fully open again.

Is this for the year when we deferred 30m of income, or is that in the next years accounts? 

If it's the deferred year then it's probably worth noting that the figures for all father teams aren't like-for-like and that as a comparison our figure is most likely significantly better than the position shown there (where for example Palace included a full year of income and we've kept £30m out of the figures).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If UEFA do bring in this luxury tax on any spending above 70% of income then it's creating the super league in all but name. It could only work if it jumps to say 90% or 100% of income below a certain level of spending. So it stops the ultra clubs or forces some distribution but doesn't stop smaller clubs competing. 

Whatever way we look at it, our decade of decline really has set Villa back for good. They will entrench the current status quo with whatever is done regardless.

 

Edit: typo

Edited by CVByrne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is this for the year when we deferred 30m of income, or is that in the next years accounts? 

If it's the deferred year then it's probably worth noting that the figures for all father teams aren't like-for-like and that as a comparison our figure is most likely significantly better than the position shown there (where for example Palace included a full year of income and we've kept £30m out of the figures).

It's 19/20 season,the one where most teams deferred some income. Burnley, Palace, Newcastle, Norwich and Sheffield United didn't.

Numbers for 20/21 season are not published yet

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

If UEFA do bring in this luxury tax on any spending above 30% of income then it's creating the super league in all but name. It could only work if it jumps to say 90% or 100% of income below a certain level of spending. So it stops the ultra clubs or forces some distribution but doesn't stop smaller clubs competing. 

Whatever way we look at it, our decade of decline really has set Villa back for good. They will entrench the current status quo with whatever is done regardless.

I think you have a typo there, it's 70%, not 30%.

Couple points:

1. We don't know the details of this proposal yet. All we know is the headline figure of 70% of the revenue. There might be some provisions in there like the one you suggesting.

2. This is UEFA proposal, it doesn't apply to all Premier League teams, only to the ones that qualify for Europe. Premier league would also need to adopt this rules for them to apply.

3. Your last paragraph summarise our situation very well. 10 years of criminal negligence and mismanagement came at the worst possible time for us. We missed the departing train complety and are stuck on the platform with no obvious way to catch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

3. Your last paragraph summarise our situation very well. 10 years of criminal negligence and mismanagement came at the worst possible time for us. We missed the departing train complety and are stuck on the platform with no obvious way to catch it.

spacer.png

Edited by MrBlack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, CVByrne said:

and now they tried their breakaway super league they need to be taken down. They can be out voted on everything and for next couple of seasons shouldn't be consulted on anything. They will never stop forcing a bigger and bigger gap between clubs.

We need to reduce their prize money, we then need to set a cap on the additional commercial revenue that can be used for transfers and wages. 

Agreed. I would also like to see a controls on tied sponsorship, whereby no team can be sponsored by a company or organisation tied to the ownership of the club for anything more than a nominal amount.

*Cough - Etihad*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

I think you have a typo there, it's 70%, not 30%.

Couple points:

1. We don't know the details of this proposal yet. All we know is the headline figure of 70% of the revenue. There might be some provisions in there like the one you suggesting.

2. This is UEFA proposal, it doesn't apply to all Premier League teams, only to the ones that qualify for Europe. Premier league would also need to adopt this rules for them to apply.

3. Your last paragraph summarise our situation very well. 10 years of criminal negligence and mismanagement came at the worst possible time for us. We missed the departing train complety and are stuck on the platform with no obvious way to catch it.

Yes typo, meants 70%.

 

I doubt the Premier League would copy UEFA on this Luxury tax proposal. But it means if a team like us spend 85% of revenue on transfers and salaries and then get into Europe we then get punished. This is the primary issue with UEFAs proposal if it was purely set at 70% of any clubs revenue.

However if they take the top 10 clubs in Europe and average their income over previous 3 years. Then take 70% of that and set that as the threshold for Luxury tax then it's a better system which tries to create competition. A cap of say 90% can be in place for those who's budget is below the threshold.

This cap at 70% would get the backing of the leeches like the Glazers et el, also clubs who want to be able to compete with City / PSG.

Edited by CVByrne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I detest energy drinks and their health effect on kids they are not going away and we do need to increase revenue and get more partners like this.

Sweden has a recommended age limit of 15 for energy drinks, no idea about the rest of Europe or the UK.

Onward to tractors, noodles, and airlines next.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

good...but also shit

official energy drinks partner, football is in the gutter

there's a lot of moaning about this on the clubs facebook

I don't understand the moaning. 

I understand that energy drinks aren't the healthiest thing in the world, but just don't buy one, or don't buy one for your kids.

Where I struggle to understand the moaning is it's likely coming from people that don't moan about other unhealthy things. "Can't wait for the Villa game, gonna get me a pint and balti pie"... Oh so alcohol (a literal toxin) and a pie that is probably 40% sodium and 30% fat. 

I'm not judging people for drinking and eating a super unhealthy pie as I also enjoy a good drink, but I'm also not judging things for being unhealthy. 

The whole situation feels like a whole load of people being very hypocritical. Now sure if someone moaning is a perfect example of health then fair play, but most of the people moaning are probably in no position to moan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horrible that kids drink that crap, I'm a youth worker and kids can get red bull rip offs for 39p a can so its a cheap option. 

This will just glamorise them even more. 

I get we will get some revenue but feels like selling your soul. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have 2 betting companies, a energy drink and some fan-token crypto whatever which neither is perhaps what you'd dream of having. But lets face, that's football. Just look at who were sponsoring the Euro's this summer, it was Russian and Azerbaijan gas companies, it was a couple Chinese state ones, Qatar Airways and so on and so on.

We are never going to grow if we intend to be overly picky about who our sponsors are. I'm content as long as we don't go too shady and stay away from the worst options out there. 

At least we are not having the Rwandan autocrat siphoning out £10m of his peoples money for a spot on our sleeves every year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the sponsorship, I know football clubs are part of the fabric of the local communities etc but I don’t see it as their responsibility to decide on sponsorship deals based upon some people’s moral outrage… It is a parents responsibility  to educate their kids about the dangers of betting , too many energy drinks, crypto currency fluctuations. And it is then up to responsible adults to make their own judgements and decisions. We need to increase our revenue and this is a great way to go that like it or not … 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Just on the sponsorship, I know football clubs are part of the fabric of the local communities etc but I don’t see it as their responsibility to decide on sponsorship deals based upon some people’s moral outrage… It is a parents responsibility  to educate their kids about the dangers of betting , too many energy drinks, crypto currency fluctuations. And it is then up to responsible adults to make their own judgements and decisions. We need to increase our revenue and this is a great way to go that like it or not … 

so our new official global porn site partner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Daweii said:

I don't understand the moaning. 

I understand that energy drinks aren't the healthiest thing in the world, but just don't buy one, or don't buy one for your kids.

Where I struggle to understand the moaning is it's likely coming from people that don't moan about other unhealthy things. "Can't wait for the Villa game, gonna get me a pint and balti pie"... Oh so alcohol (a literal toxin) and a pie that is probably 40% sodium and 30% fat. 

I'm not judging people for drinking and eating a super unhealthy pie as I also enjoy a good drink, but I'm also not judging things for being unhealthy. 

The whole situation feels like a whole load of people being very hypocritical. Now sure if someone moaning is a perfect example of health then fair play, but most of the people moaning are probably in no position to moan.

The last time I had any sort of energy drink was when I used to work shifts, double and triple shifts sometimes. I drank a well known brand purely to stay awake. That was probably 15 years ago, I've not so much as sniffed one since. The headaches alone were unbearable and that was just on 2 cans per day.  This and betting are the new booze and fags, drain the money while we can before they get banned too 

Edited by Talldarkandransome
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â