AshVilla Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 At least nobody was called a cocksucker during this meeting. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: Oddly, although the notes don't give that impression in so far as I can tell - those at the meeting reported it as being conducted in quite a positive way and with a pretty open approach. In that case, it is an achievement of sorts to have produced meeting notes that seem entirely free of either positivity or openness. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon66 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Was there any mention of the recent anonymous whistleblowing allegations ? Were questions around this/these issue(s) raised by the FAB or is there some bilateral conclusion that the allegations were a load of cobblers ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wezbid Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Is too wild for someone to put a few go pros on the table and upload the video? That way, you can gauge tone and everything is transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 1 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1 I'm with @JAMAICAN-VILLAN on this one. These are notes which contain 1-line responses from a set of questions. They are not going into any detail. That immediately makes them sound glib and insulting. The FFP response, in particular, reads badly. It sounds like a "nope - you're wrong and you don't know what your talking about" type of response from the club on first reading. But what I think it's trying to say is, essentially, there is NO secondary level of FFP approval for everything. That is, if they decide to buy a player they do not first have to run it by the FFP department which rubberstamps the signing or tells them to GTFO. It's simply a budget they have to keep to and everybody is aware of it at every level in the club. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 6 hours ago, Dillon66 said: Was there any mention of the recent anonymous whistleblowing allegations ? Were questions around this/these issue(s) raised by the FAB or is there some bilateral conclusion that the allegations were a load of cobblers ? The allegations went quiet quickly and nothing ever seemed to be picked up by the media and Heck was publicly shown at a game recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 9 hours ago, Tomaszk said: I think it's crap from the club JV. The FFP answer is exactly the same shitty attitude we've seen with the badge. Patronising wank. I hope they don't make as much of a mess with FFP as they have the badge. There's clearly some who are really full of themselves at Villa. They think they're doing well because Unai Emery is. Hope they don't undo his good work. Fiction. We know there's rules. The question was how the club makes decisions to navigate them. It wasn't answered. We got "There is no such thing as FFP decisions" which is incorrect. If we sell Ramsey on June 29th, it'll be an FFP decision. The FAB should put questions forward again if they aren't answered. Fiction. OK - I read / interpretted the response in a completely different way. The way I have read the response is that there are no decisions that are made purely down to FFP and therefore there is no need to have someone akin to a President of FFP. FFP is just one of many considerations that are taken into account when making any decision. I'm sure that there is someone who is monitoring and re-forecasting our finances to review our ability to meet the FFP rules but that person does not make decisions that impact on the business or sporting side of things. I didn't think that it sounded like a flippant response at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 5 minutes ago, allani said: I'm sure that there is someone who is monitoring and re-forecasting our finances to review our ability to meet the FFP rules but that person does not make decisions that impact on the business or sporting side of things. As a finance director myself, if that person who’s responsible for forecasting doesn’t have impact on any major decisions being made then they aren’t doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 8 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said: I think that is a little bit unfair JV. We all come from a variety of walks of life and we bring our experience to this. For seven years I wrote the minutes in an old job working for a board. I understand what minutes are about and I understand there is a tone there for certain. I like to think I take things as I see them and I am always as positive as ai can be with the team and manager. I think I am entitled to be rather less impressed with what is happening off the pitch and the change in tone we can all sense since last summer. At the risk of repeating old discussions - how are the Atairos and Adidas deals not things to be impressed by? They both represent a significant shift in the type / level of organisation that we are partnering with and point to an ability to address the revenue imbalance between us and our rivals. I understand your frustrations on the crest and redevelopment but that doesn't mean that there aren't other good things happening off the pitch. There's a lot of stuff that seems very similar to what happened under Purslow (and this comment isn't directed at you) - after the decision to hire Gerrard it was like everything that the club did that was good was down to NSWE and everything we got wrong was pinned on Purslow. We seem to be following the same path again - the Atairos and Adidas deals were down to the owners and everything we don't like gets pinned on Heck. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 20 minutes ago, allani said: OK - I read / interpretted the response in a completely different way. The way I have read the response is that there are no decisions that are made purely down to FFP and therefore there is no need to have someone akin to a President of FFP. FFP is just one of many considerations that are taken into account when making any decision. I'm sure that there is someone who is monitoring and re-forecasting our finances to review our ability to meet the FFP rules but that person does not make decisions that impact on the business or sporting side of things. I didn't think that it sounded like a flippant response at all. me too if we sell ramsey on the 29th June it will be a footballing decision (monchi) guided by finances (CFO) with Heck over seeing both you can put that kind of process in to every walk of life and every business going, football is no different, at times it seems like fans cant disassociate football clubs from other businesses when in reality football clubs seemingly move further towards being completely regular on an almost daily basis maybe the only strange thing about villa is that the CFO is barely ever mentioned but you'd have to assume he does a financial report to heck, monchi does a football report to heck and heck makes decisions - which part of that would be any different if they managed a factory rather than a football club? or which part of that would be different if FFP didn't exist? all FFP does is change the info that needs to be on the reports, it doesn't change the process 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 16 minutes ago, nick76 said: As a finance director myself, if that person who’s responsible for forecasting doesn’t have impact on any major decisions being made then they aren’t doing their job. I didn't mean to say they don't have an impact - I meant to say that person doesn't make the final call . We don't have someone sat in an FFP office who can just announce that we are selling Ramsey in June as it is the quickest way to hit our FFP targets. But there will be someone saying "hey guys we need to raise £x in the next 4 weeks or we're going to have a problem". Edited March 1 by allani 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 4 minutes ago, villa4europe said: me too if we sell ramsey on the 29th June it will be a footballing decision (monchi) guided by finances (CFO) with Heck over seeing both you can put that kind of process in to every walk of life and every business going, football is no different, at times it seems like fans cant disassociate football clubs from other businesses when in reality football clubs seemingly move further towards being completely regular on an almost daily basis maybe the only strange thing about villa is that the CFO is barely ever mentioned but you'd have to assume he does a financial report to heck, monchi does a football report to heck and heck makes decisions - which part of that would be any different if they managed a factory rather than a football club? or which part of that would be different if FFP didn't exist? all FFP does is change the info that needs to be on the reports, it doesn't change the process Not only that but going back to one of your paragraphs, the CFO/Finance Director will be liaising very often in meetings with Monchi or Heck or both discussing these topics or player. Things are of this magnitude are very rarely done in isolation by one department. So it won’t be just waiting for regular reports. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 7 minutes ago, villa4europe said: me too if we sell ramsey on the 29th June it will be a footballing decision (monchi) guided by finances (CFO) with Heck over seeing both you can put that kind of process in to every walk of life and every business going, football is no different, at times it seems like fans cant disassociate football clubs from other businesses when in reality football clubs seemingly move further towards being completely regular on an almost daily basis maybe the only strange thing about villa is that the CFO is barely ever mentioned but you'd have to assume he does a financial report to heck, monchi does a football report to heck and heck makes decisions - which part of that would be any different if they managed a factory rather than a football club? or which part of that would be different if FFP didn't exist? all FFP does is change the info that needs to be on the reports, it doesn't change the process I think that Monchi reports to the owners not to Heck. The response from the club certainly says that the PFO reports to ownership and the PBO reports to ownership. So if we sell Ramsey it will not be Heck's decision. Heck might have recommended it from a business point of view, but Monchi would have given a football perspective to the decision and ultimately responsibility for the decision sits with ownership. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 minute ago, nick76 said: Not only that but going back to one of your paragraphs, the CFO/Finance Director will be liaising very often in meetings with Monchi or Heck or both discussing these topics or player. Things are of this magnitude are very rarely done in isolation by one department. So it won’t be just waiting for regular reports. I think this is exactly what I was trying to say (maybe not very well). The CFO/Finance Director is already involved in meetings / decisions that are being made and part of that will be about FFP implications. But we don't need a seperate FFP compliance process because it's already implicit in the way that the business is run. FFP hasn't changed the fact that the financial aspect of any big decision needs to be properly assessed - it just sets some additional criteria to consider within that assessment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 17 minutes ago, allani said: At the risk of repeating old discussions - how are the Atairos and Adidas deals not things to be impressed by? They both represent a significant shift in the type / level of organisation that we are partnering with and point to an ability to address the revenue imbalance between us and our rivals. I understand your frustrations on the crest and redevelopment but that doesn't mean that there aren't other good things happening off the pitch. Yes, Adidas well done Villa. Absolutely. Confusing our whole brand over a 12 month period when we have more exposure than ever before - not so well done. Going from promising we would have a 50k Villa Park in 2026 to basically saying we aren't expanding and I'm fact any changes will be for more GA+ seats- not so well done Villa. Anyway, some posters here get very upset if you dare suggest people in authority aren't right all the time. For what is worth I was a Purslow fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Platt Posted March 1 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1 14 minutes ago, villa4europe said: me too if we sell ramsey on the 29th June it will be a footballing decision (monchi) guided by finances (CFO) with Heck over seeing both you can put that kind of process in to every walk of life and every business going, football is no different, at times it seems like fans cant disassociate football clubs from other businesses when in reality football clubs seemingly move further towards being completely regular on an almost daily basis maybe the only strange thing about villa is that the CFO is barely ever mentioned but you'd have to assume he does a financial report to heck, monchi does a football report to heck and heck makes decisions - which part of that would be any different if they managed a factory rather than a football club? or which part of that would be different if FFP didn't exist? all FFP does is change the info that needs to be on the reports, it doesn't change the process I think other businesses are allowed to speculate to accumulate. Seems football does not allow that anymore. Football is ammotive so if as fans we see that other teams have an unfair advantage we vent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 4 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: Yes, Adidas well done Villa. Absolutely. Confusing our whole brand over a 12 month period when we have more exposure than ever before - not so well done. Going from promising we would have a 50k Villa Park in 2026 to basically saying we aren't expanding and I'm fact any changes will be for more GA+ seats- not so well done Villa. Anyway, some posters here get very upset if you dare suggest people in authority aren't right all the time. For what is worth I was a Purslow fan. I spent a lot of time defending Purslow too (seems to be a bit of a trend!). That said my gut feel at present is that Heck is able to get us in front of potential partners that Purslow just couldn't - or even if NSWE make the contact, Heck is better able to then continue and take things to the next level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blunther Posted March 1 Popular Post Share Posted March 1 13 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said: So... We are doing what we want anyway. Bye. What's the point of these if all the decisions have been made beforehand? Nah, they're going to 'consult' on price rises on the 20th March "Would you prefer a 20% or a 25% rise in ticket prices?" "Our consultation demonstrates that fans show an overwhelming support for a 20% rise in ticket prices" 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, allani said: I spent a lot of time defending Purslow too (seems to be a bit of a trend!). That said my gut feel at present is that Heck is able to get us in front of potential partners that Purslow just couldn't - or even if NSWE make the contact, Heck is better able to then continue and take things to the next level. I dont think we'll ever know if Purslow could have negotiated a deal with Adidas if the club had been in the champions league spots when he did so. When we signed with Castore, it was seen as a good improvement on our existing contract monetarily, and at the time was probably the best we could expect given similar clubs. It is fair to give Heck some credit for it, but as to whether we couldn't have done the same with Purslow I guess we'll never know. My gut doesn't really give me a good feel about him, but my trust in the owners does, so if he really gets things wrong I've got confidence they'll correct it at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 7 hours ago, ozvillafan said: The FFP response, in particular, reads badly. It sounds like a "nope - you're wrong and you don't know what your talking about" type of response from the club on first reading. But what I think it's trying to say is, essentially, there is NO secondary level of FFP approval for everything. That is, if they decide to buy a player they do not first have to run it by the FFP department which rubberstamps the signing or tells them to GTFO. It's simply a budget they have to keep to and everybody is aware of it at every level in the club. Could you apply to the club to be their official minute writer please, That would have been a much better written response in the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts