Leaderboard

Fair to whom though? Surely it has to be primarily fair to all the other championship clubs who, knowing the new ffp rules ( as did every other club ahead of the 3 year assessment period), took whatever steps were necessary to bring their finances in line, even if it meant selling their best players at the cost of competitive advantage.

If you check back through this thread I think you will find that there was equal scrutiny of Derby's and Sheffield Wednesday's situations in similar circumstances i.e. the sale of their stadia. I would suggest the feelings of many City fans ( and probably those of other clubs that have taken the necessary, albeit tough steps, to comply with ffp) are that clubs that appear to have circumvented the financial rules should receive due punishment. Not because it's Derby or Villa, out of some sort of vindictive retribution, but because they appear to have taken the p155 with every other club I'm the division. There is also a degree of anger and frustration with the EFL over their abject administration of ffp, and in particular the cock up in drafting the new rules that left the loophole regarding stadium sales. That Villa appear to have benefitted from this to the degree that you are now enjoying life ( and the financial benefits) in the premier league, might explain fans' frustration a little.

Blimey, I must have had the best tide marks in south Bristol back in the 70’s. Didn’t meet a flannel until 1980 ?

When reality hits home.

Quaffing an agreeable Chilean Merlot and wondering how the countdown to The Fruit Market Stadium’s completion is going?! As Wael the messiah pronounced a while back, it will be ready in two years, so what’s that now? 18 months until the gas first play there? I’ve probably got that incorrect so please feel free to update the timeline - anyone seen a JCB on site yet? Because the billionaire Wael would never mislead the blue few would he?! ????

Yes, I heard that too. A very positive 'Johnsonism'. Fair play to him for that one.

LJ said in one of the post Derby pressers about wanting all of Bristol to get behind what we're doing...........well, three quarters of it ,anyhow.......................made me chuckle !

Yes, they are our opinions, often caveated by only knowing as much has been published. Why so salty?

Cash flow and FFP are significantly different and though the debt was removed and the immediate issues cleared, I'm unsure how it impacts upon FFP. I don't know though, was there some special exemption for Aston Villa? The owners sorted the cashflow issue, the debt issue- the FFP problem is or was more complicated. So. What. Cut your cloth accordingly- sign cheaper, use youth more. You don't 'have' to replace loanees as such. Yes, I forgot about compensation for Bruce and compensation to Brentford for Smith- that can add to the losses? Your club should be worried or at least have pause for thought on return...just seem something interesting about Sheffield Wednesday! Remember clubs demanding punishment for Birmingham surely helped to escalate that...I know they were in breach but it seemed that them signing Pedersen irked many rival clubs- and I wonder how it would've panned out in those early days, if they had stuck to the soft embargo... https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11703/11933677/sheffield-wednesday-clubs-demand-points-deduction-over-sale-of-hillsborough-to-dejphon-chansiri Clubs set the rules!! Fairly sure some of Leeds points deductions were voted for by clubs! They could quite easily vote on something about Aston Villa, especially if everyone else gets punished or at least referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.

The key thing is that our owner, realising the future impact of ffp decided that staying within the financial rules needed to be the overriding part of the club's future strategy, that the club could no longer rely on his wealth to cover unlimited losses and that the club therefore needed to become sustainable within it's own means . Given that he made his fortune within the highly regulated ( including massive penalties for rule breaches) financial services industry, that was perhaps understandable. It does not mean that he was not ambitious and did not want the club to challenge for promotion, but understood that the plan for sustainability might impact on this happening in the short term - an issue that many City fans have failed to grasp, understand and/or accept ( although many will point to other factors impacting this that are and nothing to do with ffp! ) For many other clubs, it appears that adherence to the financial rules has been a secondary consideration to being as competitive as possible on the pitch and Mel Morris alluded to this when he spoke following the "sale" of Pride Park and the issues it raised. He also spoke of Derby's future plans for sustainability as the way forward, as though it was a road to Emmaus moment of inspiration rather than something forced upon them when no other options were left once their promotion bid failed, yet again. Forced to cut their cloth accordingly, it is interesting to see that Derby's season has only got going with the addition of £100,000 per week Wayne Rooney, which if accounted for as a player, and without sponsorship, would risk their finances breaking ffp but this time without the safety net of a stadium sale. It is clubs' unrelenting quest for promotion to the "promised land" , at all costs, which has led to the escalation in players' wages to unmanageable levels. The level of losses in the championship are unsustainable in the long term and potentially jeopardise almost any club's future if unchecked. It is not about creating a level playing field, but ensuring sensible and realistic financial control to protect clubs from themselves ( or more accurately from their owners' ambitions). As far as I am aware nowhere in the rules does it say that leeway will be give for clubs finding it hard to bring their finances in line while remaining competitive or maintaining a promotion challenge. Accordingly, while some clubs have taken, and are taking, the steps necessary to conform why should their be leniency extended to clubs that have chosen to do what they are comfortable with, even when it is not enough? As far as I can see a fire sale will only result when a club has left it too late to sell a particular player, and is it any different than a club taking the risk that holding on to player in the last year of his contract, in the hope that he might make the difference in the promotion race, could result in him leaving for nothing at the end of the season if the promotion bid fails - the ultimate "fire sale"?

Perhaps that's because selling players is a part of the long term sustainability strategy/plan the owner put in place in order to ensure the club worked within the new ffp limits and rules, part of which is accepting that selling our best players will potentially impact on our performance on the pitch, so part of that same strategy is player development and recruitment.

Ain’t heard that phrase for yonks.Can still picture the wet flannel being smashed into my face as I walked through the back door,my old dear loved me really.

"Honestly David, what are the chances? You come into a Tesco filling station in little old Clevedon on a rainy Wednesday evening and you're not even the richest person in here?"

Depending on specific circumstances, a sale on 1st July can still be included in the accounts in the 'previous year'

Nice posts @Delta and @Mr Popodopolous if we ignore the stadium sale, a £29m loss offset by £4m Transfer profit - so a £25m loss, doesn’t look like the best attempt to stay within the business plan. I do agree to an extent re EFL not forcing a player to be sold, but was the stipulation by Feb 1st or by 30th June. It happened on 1st July....after the end of their financial year. If you’re going to allow clubs to say “well we sold him eventually” you might as well not have rules. What is deal fell through, no guarantees. We sold Kelly in May to not just let Bournemouth get it done before further interest, but to improve our accounts. Clubs need to think smarter!! Will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

The only thing they'll be breaking is wind

I think they were due to break ground a week or two ago but their contractors got called away after the road collapsed in the Cumberland Basin. That should give him an excuse for another couple of years at least of doing **** all!

We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t. There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?

The problem is, if you have breached for the three year period, the horse has bolted. Until you publish your accounts we don’t know. You don’t seem to get that we are speculating and therefore discussing on a forum stuff that has been put out in the media. If this thread is nonsense, why not scroll past it? We’ve had some good debate on this thread with fans of other clubs, and we’ve had some who seem to be worried by it. It’s a forum, it’s not a court.

You misunderstood me. When I say unlucky I meant that had it been Villa In exactly the same scenario, I think they’d (EFL) have bottled it. Not saying Villa have broken the rules. If you actually read what I’ve said I’ve been pretty clear that we don’t know what is really going on there. If all “ifs”.

Here are some calculations I made a little while ago too, if anyone interested. Hopefully this will come out alright- and I haven't yet factored in a ground sale and leaseback. Nor have I factored in Traore sell on clause. About £3.6m if reports to be believed. That loss is of course before the allowable FFP deductions but given this is on the basis of those being much the same, they wouldn't make any difference as such. The Headline loss was inclusive of Parachute Payments, Profit on Transfers and HS2 or similar compensation- but before the allowable costs that you deduct. it's possible that when including the ground sale that Aston Villa scraped it but certainly passed, but that any downward adjustment would see a fail- and the size of the adjustment would impact upon the size of the overspend. I don't know why it's formatting like this- leaving half a post space blank! ?

I'm not quite sure that's the consideration with FFP tbh. Check your Operating Losses in 2017/18, use these as a starting point, work out Parachute Payments and the differences between them in 2017/18 and last year- Profit on Transfers. Granted wages will have fell but you made that £54m operating loss that year- despite £33m in Parachute Payments and £13m in Profit on Transactions etc. Your Accumulated FFP losses to May 2018 in the Chamopipinship were about £24-25m after allowabvle costs. Your allowable costs in the 2017/18 season were about £15m and about £10-11m in 2016/17. Means you could lose in gross accounting terms £29-30m last season, in FFP terms about £29-30m. The Villa Park valuation should've been tested at the time by the EFL as soon as they got wind of it, and actually if it was done post March 2019 then there is an argument to say that it shouldn't have counted for FFP purposes. I have a feeling that- and not just with you- but in the last 2 seasons under Shaun Harevey, these Projected Accounts were not necessarily applied correctly in a fair few cases. The funny thing is, £56.7m does seem reasonable but the question is, how are Impairment and the possible treatment of Depreciation factored in? You're not guilty until proven otherwise but a lot of things merit rigorous investigation! @Davefevs Might have been @YorkshireAVFC but not seen him on Twitter for a while. His calculations and projections were not very different to mine, Kieran Maguire's or Swiss Ramble's btw.

I want fair play. FWIW I think Brum we’re unlucky. I think the EFL went after them rather than say Villa, so they could get a precedent set without too much fight. Had they (Shaun and his cronies) not taken so long to sort it, then I think Villa would’ve come under earlier scrutiny. Who knows they may have still passed FFP, we don’t know. Until we see May 31st 2019’s Account’s we won’t know. If those show failure to meet the FFP limits then you’ve got away with blue (claret and blue) murder, and the EFL failed to act on their own rules. If you pass, then that’s fair enough. Much of our info has come from a Villa guy well informed on the financials. Can’t recall his name. As for playing youngsters. Yes, why not. They are pros. We played 9 kids in 1982 to fulfil a fixture.

Oh yeah, think I recall. My tip to go to or to explore going to CAS was NOT necessarily to defer punishment but to try and get the accounts or Projected Accounts of other sides strongly rumoured to be in breach seen- see CAS AC Milan 2018, when they nearly got disclosure of Inter Milan, Man City and PSG- a point that if Birmingham are to be punished then everyone else must be too. https://www.football-italia.net/124755/inter-balance-sheets-cas I want no free passes for any side. None. My legal angle was for Birmingham to get proper disclosure of all to punish all if necessary or properly try all if necessary at least, not to get anyone off the hook!

You're missing the point - Be it cash flow or not, one of the first things the new regime would have done would have been to speak with the EFL for guidance on how they may proceed. To suggest they would just blithely march in and do things without checking is ridiculous. Everyone knew the precarious position that Villa were in, not least the owners who would have carried out due diligence. Whilst the loanees would have had wages to cover, they were still needed given that the loanees from the previous season had left. Most Championship clubs seek at least 1 loanee as a cheaper option to buying. Something else you have not thought about is the severance package that Bruce would have received. Again, if the club were concerned about FFP then Bruce would certainly have remained at the helm. It would have been futile to sack Bruce and replace him, only to have a points deduction the following season (at that point it looked likely that we would remain in the Championship the following season).

Not true, it's how they do their player transfer deals. ....Oh..FACTS. Sorry, I misheard..

I'm happy to have a quick look at Aston Villa's possible profit on transfers to offset losses for last season- as per Transfermarkt- Loans are a big unknown though, often. Amavi sold- £9m. Remaining Book Value, £3.96m. That's Profit on Transaction of £5.04m and then you add £1.98m in reduced costs. Net gain for the year, £7.02m. Gollini, sold- £3.42m, Remaining Book Value £2.25m. That's Profit on Transaction of £1.17m and then you add £1.125m in reduced costs. Net gain for the year, £2.295m. Gil, sold £1.58m. Remaining Book Value £0.84m. That's Profit on Transaction of £0.74m and then you add the remaining elimination of the NBV of £0.84m. Net gain for the year, £1.58m. I make that £10.895m in improved position. Add in 20% sell on for Traore too, and that's £14.495m in Improved Position. Of course, this is before added amortisation, this is before loan fees in or out, this is before added wages as these 3 were on loan elsewhere- though I believe and have read on Villa Finances page that the wage bill came down by £10m excluding promotion bonuses which don't count towards FFP. This profit on transfers etc is simply subtracted from the operating losses- which were £50m in 2017/18 when there was still £30-35m of Parachute Payments...these fall by £15-20m in Year 3! Haha got it wrong, operating losses before Player Trading were actually £54m in 2017/18! That figure btw in 2017/18 was about £15m- so you're standing still if that figure I came to is broadly right, and then you factor in McGinn and others amortisation, you factor in loan fees- you factor in Parachute Payments dropping markedly in Year 3- those accounts will be fascinating! @downendcity Will reply to your post in full later but until this summer at least, Derby were a weird one- not one of the egregious breachers though still could've done more- see the players they sold in summers 2016, 2017 and 2018, but not necessarily compliant either. I assumed that this would be a bit of a hard reset the ground sale, a way to take the hit of residual value or something, but buying Bielik and loaning Rooney with that 32Red deal made me reassess! Until the end of last season though, they were neither one nor the other IMO. Had they loaned Matt Clarke last summer...and left it at that, I might have reassessed again! On the flip side, had they say loaned say one of Mount/Wilson, purchased just one of Waghorn and Marriott- that combined with the sales would've shown impressive restraint and ability/willingness to comply moving forward. Or loaned one of those two aforementioned attacking players, and signed Jozefzoon or even just one of the 3. That would have shown an undoubted intent.

And @downendcity (in response to @delta), it’s just as cut throat in real business, where a business might try to buy another business on the cheap because it knew of profit warnings or cashflow issues, or try to do a deal on purchasing some products.

Could almost buy an anniversary shirt for that price!

If it is then the matter is closed - If it isn't then there's a potential problem. I would hope that Purslow et all knew what they were doing. Davefevs: It has to be the case that a clean slate is given after a punishment for a 3 year breach. The alternative would be a club being punished twice. I accept that a condition of this would be the business plan and that any breach would be classed as an aggravated breach. However, the world and his wife were aware of this business plan so it subsequently enabled teams to take the piss by making derogatory offers. FFP should not exist to give other teams a sporting advantage over punished teams. Perhaps a solution moving forward would be to agree figures in advance - The alternative could be a scenario where (for example) we go in and say "Give us Adams for £1m or face a points deduction". Who wants that to exist within our game? Personally, I wish FFP was just binned. It was only brought in originally because English teams were dominating Europe. Now it is the top few teams in each country who are receiving the lions share of the wealth. Nothing has changed other than the way the wealth is distributed.

Yes but their advantage was still ongoing to an extent- it's a hard one, how much is too much, what is the right balance? 3 points seems fair I'd say, if it gets enforced- could prove crucial in future years and a good precedent to set! Again, I point to Saracens. Different sport but to me it makes some sense- they are in a sense having cake and eating it if they hold onto players until the end of the season. Clearly if the bids take the piss then don't sell but £12m, provided it's a straight cash payment ie not subject to add on and considering that 20% of that goes to Sheff Utd anyway, of whatever fee- this seems reasonable to me, but it's arguable either way. Saracens didn't hit their January deadline and got a further 35 pts deducted on top of their breach for the prior 3 year period. Extrapolated to football that's 21 and the same again, subject to bonus points!! Dunno about this, Leeds yes- Brentford? Would have to delve in, they seem to get outstanding fees for their players. Norwich too. Middlesbrough sold majorly as well! Replaced yes but to replace within FFP a club needs to lower their sights significantly. Your expenditure last season while right on the cusp was hardly that of a club taking it seriously! You gained a sporting advantage by not seeming to be so bothered, and as such a sporting sanction should follow according to the loss limit vs points ratio. Did indeed @Davefevs - the alternative might have been rolling failures, ie that 2016/17-2018/19 as the starting point. Part of the charge might be that the stadium sale (which seemed fair in terms of price and rent btw) helped take their loss below the agreed limit, messing up future calculations too? The alternative of not resetting the prior 2 seaons to £13m might be rolling major points penalties and embargoes. Think they got the better of that, but the kicker is that they have to adhere to their agreements!

Not quite @Bristol Rob

What!?! Are you saying I've got to carry a pack of tissues around with me now I'm a grown up? Maybe I'll just carry a reusable, snot filled hanky stuffed up my sleeve, like my Granny!!

I think one thing worth considering with any action plan agreed by EFL and Brum, is that as they’d breached the 3-year limit, they are on “special measures” (my wording) and now reporting annually at £13m. In some respects, going onto a annual remediation plan, saved the double whammy of them still failing years 2,3,4, (as they moved from years 1,2,3) if that makes sense. To try to “take the piss” (again my wording) by not selling, if that indeed was the plan, is gonna incur the wrath of the EFL. They could get points and aggravation deductions if true. Its difficult being an outsider here, and I’m sure I’m showing some bias because my club are within ffp, because we don’t know exactly what is going on.

I expect they’ve had a van load of valentines cards delivered today,from fans of every club in the country.

Was just about to post exactly that ?????

They’ve had ‘best’ days,I must of blinked and missed them.

Such a funny thread. Some are so convinced the prices will drive our fans away. They don't understand that what you pay for is what you get. Rover's best days are most likely behind them.

If I was a club battling the drop or for the playoffs say, then I would consider keeping key assets in January to be a competitive advantage- a competitive advantage gained through overspending. Until we know the fine detail of the Business Plan, if we ever will, then we can't say for sure who is in the right here IMO. In terms of unreasonable deadlines, are you factoring in Projected Accounts? This is often missed in mainstream FFP analysis but the P&S regulations have Projected Accounts submitted by clubs in March of the existing season. Technically he wasn't sold by March so clearly no profit shown in that respect. The idea behind Projected Accounts is that it goes T (Club submitted of Projected Accounts for the existing season), T-1 and T-2, the latter two being the actual figures. if the aggregate total of these three after FFP allowances exceeds £39m or for relegated sides the PL adjusted limit, then a club has failed FFP! In theory, it should be easy therefore to dock points in the existing season based on the limit- the club would've submitted the figures so it'd be their own fault. T=Projected figures as submitted by the clubs for the current season so say 2019/20 for now, T-1=Real Accounts for 2018/19 and T-2=Real Accounts for 2017/18. Add it all, subtract for FFP ie academy expenditure etc and test against the loss limit relevant to the club- if all fine, go, if not then it's an Independent Disciplinary Commission- ideally before the end of the current season! If further info required, then the EFL has the right to request this from the club- say a profit on transfers projected or forecast, or a large exceptional item. Maybe hire independent valuers at the earliest chance if the latter appears in Profit on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets- ie a planned Stadium sale shown in the accounts submitted in March- if it's not there and doesn't appear until later, then maybe it should be considered inadmissible for FFP purposes? These rules are actually very watertight in some ways, the question is how well they have been enforced! We weren't in breach of FFP so it is a bit moot. Brentford- us, Norwich, Leeds? Besides you reinvested a certain amount of that, but net spend is in itself a misleading metric- amortisation, Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations etc- these are all quite important. Net Cash Flow with respect to Player Transfers is useful, but more about the FFP Cash Losses, FFP isn't necessarily about Cash Flow anyway. It's complex. Talking of Aston Villa specifically for a moment, how do we know the Villa Park sale and leaseback was in those Projected Accounts? I'm not wholly convinced that it would've been.

You could grow potatoes behind your ears?

Haha dont forget to wash the back of your neck and behind your earholes ????

I am the last person on this planet who would want to do Birmingham any favours. However, they do seem to be incurring the full wrath of the EFL. A deadline of Feb 1st is unreasonable IMO and is clearly indicating that players should be sold. Not only that but that they have the 1 month January window in order to do so. Bear in mind that at the time, Birmingham were anticipating a hefty points deduction (which they subsequently received) so a double whammy could have sent them down. By fair, I mean that the punishement should be fair (and proportionate). A points deduction or heavy fine would (imo) be too steep and the EFL have the ability to impose a range of various sanctions. In your case, you were never forced to sell players for less than the figure you wanted for them. Selling players at the cost of competitive advantage is something that Villa did during their 3 years in the Championship BTW. We probably bought more coffers in that way than anyone else in the division.

To be honest I forgot what a kind face Wael has...….. the kind of face one would like to punch.

"OK David, take your selfie but please then leave me alone".

Ain't seen a tide mark like that for yonks.

Geography not their strong point, clearly.

Plymouth Argyle has awesome away support given their geographical location - never mind the gas, they put us to shame too - proper supporters who travel in huge numbers ... distance doesn’t seem to bother them ... #GreenArmy ...

I stand to be corrected by City fans with greater financial knowledge than I, but I'm pretty certain that "third party" ownership of Ashton Gate occurred prior to the current ffp rules. I am pretty certain it was done by the owner when he reorganised the club under the Bristol Sport umbrella ( it may even have preceded that) and not for any financial motivation i.e. Bristol City FC did not benefit financially from the change of ownership.