Jump to content
IGNORED

Villa owe us money for JK?


Bristol Rob

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

It seemed widely accepted (on here!) that we wrote off any remainder when we signed Nathan Baker from them. But maybe the EP knows better.

With Villa owing Brentford, Fulham and West Brom money, I don't imagine we're at the head of the queue.

Just goes to show how morally corrupt the game is that a club the size of Villa can owe sums of money to their competitors after truly wreckless spending. That despite the huge advantage of parachute payments. Their owner doesn't have the funds he promised so is now saying he can't get his money out of China. Funnily enough I'm a billionaire if I could just get my funds out of Russia!

I've no doubt their debts will all be written off and in a few years the media darlings will be applauding the phoenix like re-emergence of the might Villa.

I was delighted they missed out on promotion this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pride of the west said:

'Claims bristol post'.

I shouldn't read too much into it. It was only bonuses we didn't get upfront and then they were probably wiped as part of the baker deal

I thought transfer fees were rarely paid 'up front' and were usually spread over a number of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought transfer fees were rarely paid 'up front' and were usually spread over a number of years.

Pretty sure there was a change in regulations that meant they had to be paid within a year of the transfer.

Obviously if the selling club buys a player from them in the interim (like we did with Baker) that can alter/ remove the amount still due..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this a common thing? A lot of transfers happen over the period of a players contract, so if Kodjia was signed for four years and Villa had cash in the bank they'd opt to pay £15m over four years.

I remember before their first promotion to the Premier League that Cardiff were being slated by other chairman over trying to sign players when they had owed money on transfers from years ago. A lot of businesses delay their payments up until payment is absolutely necessary, and sometimes will pay penalties if it makes sense to drag a payment over a longer period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one thing for sure. Villa are in deep shit . Seems there is a lot of people queuing up for their money. Or lack of. I have no idea about our transfer dealings. But I’m pretty sure Angers has a sell on clause. And don’t give a shit about villas situation. It’s definitely a knock on affect. But I doubt it will affect our summer recruitment. Pay up Villa . Remember some of there arrogant fans last year. Football has a funny way of biting you on the ass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Pretty sure there was a change in regulations that meant they had to be paid within a year of the transfer.

Obviously if the selling club buys a player from them in the interim (like we did with Baker) that can alter/ remove the amount still due..

Can you find anymore details on that regulation change? I'm just thinking that if transfer fees are now being paid over 12 months rather than contract duration then I am surprised transfer fees haven't lowered as fewer clubs would be able to fund such outgoings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems wrong that teams are allowed to benefit from fielding players and gaining points from players that they have missed payments on and in so doing, breaking the contract between them and the club selling the player to them.

A ban on clubs playing players that they've missed payments on in league and cup matches seems reasonable. Or at the very least, the certainly shouldn't be allowed to play against the team that sold them to the club, that then screwed them over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Northski said:

It seems wrong that teams are allowed to benefit from fielding players and gaining points from players that they have missed payments on and in so doing, breaking the contract between them and the club selling the player to them.

A ban on clubs playing players that they've missed payments on in league and cup matches seems reasonable. Or at the very least, the certainly shouldn't be allowed to play against the team that sold them to the club, that then screwed them over.

Sounds like a sensible idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Northski said:

It seems wrong that teams are allowed to benefit from fielding players and gaining points from players that they have missed payments on and in so doing, breaking the contract between them and the club selling the player to them.

A ban on clubs playing players that they've missed payments on in league and cup matches seems reasonable. Or at the very least, the certainly shouldn't be allowed to play against the team that sold them to the club, that then screwed them over.

Quite agree. Surely this is the only way to stop it. Don't think just not being able to play the one team who sold them would be deterrent enough. Something has to be done to stop this practice. Going to be very interesting to see what happens at Villa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, pride of the west said:

Correct but mark Ashton explicitly stated at the time that villa had to pay up front otherwise it was a no deal. I remember reading this and hearing him say it on the radio 

I think what Ashton meant was a transfer fee rather than add ons 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Well one thing for sure. Villa are in deep shit . Seems there is a lot of people queuing up for their money. Or lack of. I have no idea about our transfer dealings. But I’m pretty sure Angers has a sell on clause. And don’t give a shit about villas situation. It’s definitely a knock on affect. But I doubt it will affect our summer recruitment. Pay up Villa . Remember some of there arrogant fans last year. Football has a funny way of biting you on the ass

They were an angry bunch, weren't they? Odd that they seemed so bothered by little Bristol City

Was at a family do on Sunday, one of my cousins is a big Villa fan goes home and away, he reckons they are completely ******. Seems the fans were stunned at just how bad the situation is there. I'm sure that someone will step in and get them sorted though. Clubs like Villa won't be allowed to go to the wall. As much as their fans came over as arrogant nobs, you can't deny they are a massive club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lord Northski said:

It seems wrong that teams are allowed to benefit from fielding players and gaining points from players that they have missed payments on and in so doing, breaking the contract between them and the club selling the player to them.

A ban on clubs playing players that they've missed payments on in league and cup matches seems reasonable. Or at the very least, the certainly shouldn't be allowed to play against the team that sold them to the club, that then screwed them over.

The trouble with that is that it would adversely affect the player, who is presumably blameless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xiled said:

It seemed widely accepted (on here!) that we wrote off any remainder when we signed Nathan Baker from them. But maybe the EP knows better.

Yeah I thought this too. It's entirely possible that we wrote off the Premier League promotion money for the Baker transfer, but are still owed an instalment from the initial fee. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this is the case.

58 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought transfer fees were rarely paid 'up front' and were usually spread over a number of years.

Correct, there are several reasons for this. One is due to cash flow of course, which affects all clubs except the really large ones.

Secondly, it assists with player amortisation - a method of spreading a transfer fee out over the course of the players' contract for accounting purposes. There's a really good example out there of how Man Utd bought Mkhitaryan for £35m in the summer of 2016, while Arsenal bought Xhaka for £30m, yet due to amortisation Mkhitaryan would actually have cost United 50% more yearly than Xhaka cost Arsenal, despite the difference being only £5m. It's an additional reason why you shouldn't always read so much into the transfer fee, and why the rumoured £6.75m for Jack Marriott might not be quite so ridiculous after all :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

They were an angry bunch, weren't they? Odd that they seemed so bothered by little Bristol City

Was at a family do on Sunday, one of my cousins is a big Villa fan goes home and away, he reckons they are completely ******. Seems the fans were stunned at just how bad the situation is there. I'm sure that someone will step in and get them sorted though. Clubs like Villa won't be allowed to go to the wall. As much as their fans came over as arrogant nobs, you can't deny they are a massive club

They are a huge club . No doubt it . I never really gave them a second thought. Until we started playing them in the championship. And my dislike for them grew enormously. I don’t ever like to see clubs go into financial trouble. But they have only themselves to blame. Aston Villa owe Bristol City some serious money. And are struggling to pay it . How times change 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red Army 75 said:

They are a huge club . No doubt it . I never really gave them a second thought. Until we started playing them in the championship. And my dislike for them grew enormously. I don’t ever like to see clubs go into financial trouble. But they have only themselves to blame. Aston Villa owe Bristol City some serious money. And are struggling to pay it . How times change 

Absolutely. They completely went for it and it backfired, and the amazing thing is that they really didn't need to do so. Aston Villa are easily one of the biggest clubs in the Championship, in terms of gate revenue, commercial revenue and then with parachute payments, they should easily have had the firepower to get out of this league if they spent wisely. Instead, they didn't spend wisely enough, and spent too much, completely unnecessarily, and now they could be stuck here for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

They are a huge club . No doubt it . I never really gave them a second thought. Until we started playing them in the championship. And my dislike for them grew enormously. I don’t ever like to see clubs go into financial trouble. But they have only themselves to blame. Aston Villa owe Bristol City some serious money. And are struggling to pay it . How times change 

100%. Made my season when they bottled it at Wembley. Literally not a single thing to like about the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not uncommon for amortisation to spread payment over the length of the contract- if we've managed to get it up front we have done well, and MA would deserve credit!

Bottled it at Wembley? Given Fulham are the better side, would say it went roughly as expected tbh- though failing vs 10 a big fail on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
1 hour ago, pride of the west said:

Correct but mark Ashton explicitly stated at the time that villa had to pay up front otherwise it was a no deal. I remember reading this and hearing him say it on the radio 

@pride of the west details below

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Pretty sure there was a change in regulations that meant they had to be paid within a year of the transfer.

Surely a contract is exactly that - so regulation changes would only have affected deals from that point forward not anything retrospective

34 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

I think what Ashton meant was a transfer fee rather than add ons 

Correct @BS3_RED £11m up front, with potential of another £4m - must assume most if not all of that would have been dependant on Villa getting promoted so guess we are stuck with the £11m

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Leveller said:

The trouble with that is that it would adversely affect the player, who is presumably blameless.

True, and half of me thinks "so what and sod the player" (probably because it's the Villa), but the other half accepts that its a valid point.

Perhaps the slightly more tempered of my two suggestions should be used in that case,  that being that the player for who hasn't been paid for (in line with the original agreement) should not be allowed to play against the club who haven't been paid/ screwed over etc. Thus, no obvious advantage can be gained by the club doing the dirty. Although, you'd accept that the club would gain the advantage in the other 44 games in that season. Still leaves a bad taste though, doesn't it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Northski said:

True, and half of me thinks "so what and sod the player" (probably because it's the Villa), but the other half accepts that its a valid point.

Perhaps the slightly more tempered of my two suggestions should be used in that case,  that being that the player for who hasn't been paid for (in line with the original agreement) should not be allowed to play against the club who haven't been paid/ screwed over etc. Thus, no obvious advantage can be gained by the club doing the dirty. Although, you'd accept that the club would gain the advantage in the other 44 games in that season. Still leaves a bad taste though, doesn't it?

 

Another option would be to nullify the contract, making the player a free agent, subject to his new club paying the outstanding transfer fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...