Jump to content

FFP Rules, why do Villa vote against?


Hughes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mods, if this has been discussed elsewhere please delete at will.

Financial Fair Play Rules for the Premier League have been approved today, imposing maximum salaries of 52 million annually and max losses over 3 years of 105 million. Annual wages may be increased (1) by 4 million annually for three years, (2) by increased income created by the club (assumably compared to income as of today?), and (3) by profits from players sales. Villa again voted against, with 4 others (Baggies and ManCity among them) joining us.

I genuinely want to understand why we vote against. Granted, these rules may favor ManU, Pool and Arsenal as they have substantial turnover and income (but the 52 million wage cap will apply to them as well). However, I would have thought that this should be beneficial to us, at least over time, as we should be able to increase our income and because these rules should avoid another Man City / Chelsea popping out of nowhere. We would not have been able to spend top dosh anyway so this is also a reason why these rules should be beneficial over time as they should create a more level playing ground. Not with respect to the ManU's of this world but more with respect to the artificial money-drugged clubs.

I just do not understand why we, of all, vote against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imposing maximum salaries of 52 million annually

but the 52 million wage cap will apply to them as well

I'm trying to understand this.. am I right in thinking that it is not actually a cap, but that clubs that spent more than this will be limited to a small annual increase (£4m) on top of what they are already spending, and that actually spending more than £52m is not a problem.. they just won't be able to increase it by much.

So in other words a team like City who is probably spending well over £100m can continue to do so, provided they don't have losses over £105m over three years...?

Edited by tarjei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the clubs with big stadiums and sponsorship deals would have more money to spend

 

 

 

 

Which brings a euopean super league a little closer. To be fair, i would be happy for the Manures, Chelseas and Man Cities of this world to go and do that. Take ther plastic supporters with them, leaving us and the majority of others to enjoy football again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's just how is was in the past as well, no? Before Abramovich and Arab sheiks. Or are we saying that Villa, not taking into consideration artificial drugged clubs, is not one the biggest in England? (I know, I should not start that discussion again...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not with respect to the ManU's of this world but more with respect to the artificial money-drugged clubs.

I just do not understand why we, of all, vote against.

 

The ManU's of this world have used artificial money to get where they are today, just because others are using a different revenue stream (richer owners play things, rather than a nice bank manager and some financial slights of hand) they want to shut the door. West Ham have an artificial revenue stream paid for at tax payers expense, they will slip under the radar as will a few chosen others.

 

Does anyone really believe that if the Glaziers went through a financial melt down these rules would still stand once they have destroyed Man U legit revenue streams?

 

I would rather ask the question why the likes of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal bla bla have voted for this new system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

imposing maximum salaries of 52 million annually

but the 52 million wage cap will apply to them as well

I'm trying to understand this.. am I right in thinking that it is not actually a cap, but that clubs that spent more than this will be limited to a small annual increase (£4m) on top of what they are already spending, and that actually spending more than £52m is not a problem.. they just won't be able to increase it by much.

So in other words a team like City who is probably spending well over £100m can continue to do so, provided they don't have losses over £105m over three years...?

If that is the case then I have misunderstood and the new rules really suck. I am not sure, it has been described as a "cap" of 52 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not with respect to the ManU's of this world but more with respect to the artificial money-drugged clubs.

I just do not understand why we, of all, vote against.

The ManU's of this world have used artificial money to get where they are today, just because others are using a different revenue stream (richer owners play things, rather than a nice bank manager and some financial slights of hand) they want to shut the door. West Ham have an artificial revenue stream paid for at tax payers expense, they will slip under the radar as will a few chosen others.

Does anyone really believe that if the Glaziers went through a financial melt down these rules would still stand once they have destroyed Man U legit revenue streams?

I would rather ask the question why the likes of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal bla bla have voted for this new system.

Yes, I understand why it is beneficial to ManU. But Swansea voted for, Reading and Norwich as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not with respect to the ManU's of this world but more with respect to the artificial money-drugged clubs.

I just do not understand why we, of all, vote against.

The ManU's of this world have used artificial money to get where they are today, just because others are using a different revenue stream (richer owners play things, rather than a nice bank manager and some financial slights of hand) they want to shut the door. West Ham have an artificial revenue stream paid for at tax payers expense, they will slip under the radar as will a few chosen others.

Does anyone really believe that if the Glaziers went through a financial melt down these rules would still stand once they have destroyed Man U legit revenue streams?

I would rather ask the question why the likes of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal bla bla have voted for this new system.

Yes, I understand why it is beneficial to ManU. But Swansea voted for, Reading and Norwich as well.

 

Leeds, Notts Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves never had the chance to, the clubs like Reading and Norwich are minnows compared to these clubs, unless Premier League money is thrown into the arena. Closing a door on these type of clubs for ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

becuase it just keeps the rich way ahead of the others.

it would never be beneficial to a club like us

all the clubs with big stadiums and sponsorship deals would have more money to spend

This.

So have Villa voted against because the rules do not go far enough or because Randy does not want FFP rules at all? We have shown that we cannot compete under the current (non) rules so I would have thought that this was a step in the right direction. Maybe small and flawed step, but still better than status quo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it means there will only be a status quo.This stops an investor like Ambramovich or even Lerner investing in a team unless the turnover is already there.Man United are one of the big drivers of this, in the last 6 months they have signed Sponshorship deals for their shirts ,training kit ,training ground even paint suppliers worth over half a billion.They have a huge fan base and people queing to Sponsor them ,Arsenal have high ticket prices and a huge sponsorship deal with Emirates , Liverpool have a big fan base worldwide and have big sponsorship deals for their kit and Sponsor.

 

Now how is anyone going to touch them ???

 

The cap is only against Turnover and owner investment ,if you have commercial deals you can spend what ever you want hence the 3 clubs mentioned the old guard are all for it 

they don't want another Chelsea or City taking their place at the top.The other teams signed it as protects their place in league as clubs coming up won't have turnover they have..it's them giving up on competeting they are just happy to take the Prem League TV cash and survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

becuase it just keeps the rich way ahead of the others.

it would never be beneficial to a club like us

all the clubs with big stadiums and sponsorship deals would have more money to spend

This.

So have Villa voted against because the rules do not go far enough or because Randy does not want FFP rules at all? We have shown that we cannot compete under the current (non) rules so I would have thought that this was a step in the right direction. Maybe small and flawed step, but still better than status quo.

 

It restricts how your owner can spend his own money and how much of the new TV money you can spend. 

 

If you happen to have billions coming in from other sponsors than that is just fine, you can continue winning the league every year. 

 

I am sure Man U must have sat down with the Premier League to devise these restrictions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood; good for ManU. But is it therefore bad for Villa? Being realistic, we are not challengig ManU anyway and we should (and have historically not been anything more) be able to challenge for a top 6 place. In my mind these rules may, over time, make that possible. ManU is not our yardstick so I do not care that much about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its to make the strong get stronger and not improve the weaker teams.  FFP only really came about because City were signing a lot of quality players (who werent a big club)

 

the thing is if it comes through Arsenal look best placed but City and PSG have already shown their is plenty of ways around it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I genuinely want to understand why we vote against. Granted, these rules may favor ManU, Pool and Arsenal as they have substantial turnover and income (but the 52 million wage cap will apply to them as well). However, I would have thought that this should be beneficial to us, at least over time, as we should be able to increase our income and because these rules should avoid another Man City / Chelsea popping out of nowhere.

Maybe because voting against it is the right thing to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood; good for ManU. But is it therefore bad for Villa? Being realistic, we are not challengig ManU anyway and we should (and have historically not been anything more) be able to challenge for a top 6 place. In my mind these rules may, over time, make that possible. ManU is not our yardstick so I do not care that much about them.

 

I bet some Spurs fans would have been saying they would never challenge for the top spots not so long ago, yet they are competing. I'm not saying with will compete anytime soon, but you can't rule it out. And FFP makes it harder for anyone to break that cycle of the top clubs dominating, because the teams with big income won't be affected.

Edited by AVFCforever1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â