The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[havanatopia]

[downendcity]

12 hours ago, Delta said:

It is certainly the case that the EFL cannot force a club to sell players.  However, there is a possibility that Birmingham were given a date of 1st February in order to implement this business plan (something they agreed to) so if true, it amounts to the same thing and something that I would challenge.  I'm not convinced that a regulation was breached by failing to adhere to the plan either so no sporting advantage was gained by rule breaking.

If a sell on clause takes priority then this further strengthens Birmingham's argument as other than Adam's wages, they would not have put any sort of dent in the business plan.  You cannot say that by keeping Adams that Birmingham had a sporting advantage - It is impossible to prove.  There is no requirement to prove a sporting advantage in any case.

Birmingham were punished adequately for their rule breaking - They were placed on a soft embargo (that admittedly they breached by signing 1 player), they had a 9 point deduction and had to pay substantial costs.  It would be completely wrong to further punish them for refusing to sell a player for under market value in order to chalk of a few hundred thousand (in wages).  This FFP has yo be fair and proportionate, not a witch hunt.

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.

 

 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

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.

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

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

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

Ta....it didn’t in this case then, but good to know.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'd assume that for that to occur- and it didn't in the Adams case, either:

a) The accounting period would have to be moved and probably with prior consent of EFL for FFP purposes?

b) There would need to be active proof and demonstration of the proof of a prior or ongoing agreement for this transfer to have occurred from before the date.

I can't think of many other cases where it would- or more likely should- be allowable. I know that Tom Ince was sold by Derby in on 4th July 2017 but included in 2016-17 accounts even though their accounts at the club level ran until June 30th 2017.

However at the SEVCO 5112 level, the accounts ran until 31st August 2016- whereas they ran for Derby County until 30th June 2016.

I don't have time to delve into the figures at hand right now but an interesting aspect is that in one of the years- possibly 2015/16- the Sevco 5112 Limited accounts showed a profit on transfers substantially above that of Derby County for the same period!

Having said that, that could be partially down to takeover and additionally, it's not like the aggregate sum of the two seasons differs in any vast way, possibly not at all.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting post from the Birmingham forum too- and this is a reputable source, Al Majir and gives some credence to what I've suggested about court action or otherwise by clubs.

You might be interested in this @Davefevs - clubs charged under this should also take note, or more specifically fans of clubs if this has any truth!

Quote

We can’t. The disciplinary hearing is a tribunal which is binding on all parties with only one appeal allowed. It’s been set up in a way that it cannot be legally challenged.

Good news indeed if true- in terms of EFL Hearing and ability to look at effective enforcement of punishment! 

http://wewilljourneyon.proboards.com/thread/2869/birmingham-city-another-deduction-coming

I do recall suggesting a while ago that all clubs had an agreement or had to have an agreement in writing to go through Arbitration- will try do dig it out later.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

10 hours ago, downendcity said:

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.

 

 

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

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.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

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.

 

 

 

[Delta]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If I was a club battling the drop I would consider keeping key assets in January to be a competitive advantage- gained through overspending.

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. 

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.

They were punished fairly & squarely for gaining a competitive edge - They were docked points so that they were dragged from mid table into the periphery of the relegation scrap.  Any points deduction this season will be meaningless as they aren't going up and they aren't going down. (which probably makes it easy to implement a 3 point deduction).

The February 1st deadline suggests that it was aimed specifically at the January transfer window and nothing else.

Our total sales would probably be more than Brentford, Leeds & Norwich although I accept that often, a sold player would be replaced (as is normal)

[Delta]

14 minutes ago, downendcity said:

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.

 

 

 

You have done very well with your player development & recruitment.  Every player has his price and you had the luxury of naming yours for Kodjia, Reid, Webster, Bryan etc.  My point is that Birmingham didn't - Or at least don't appear to have.  Fire sales also give teams an unfair sporting advantage as well of course as giving the selling team an unfair disadvantage.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Delta said:

They were punished fairly & squarely for gaining a competitive edge - They were docked points so that they were dragged from mid table into the periphery of the relegation scrap.  Any points deduction this season will be meaningless as they aren't going up and they aren't going down. (which probably makes it easy to implement a 3 point deduction).

The February 1st deadline suggests that it was aimed specifically at the January transfer window and nothing else.

Our total sales would probably be more than Brentford, Leeds & Norwich although I accept that often, a sold player would be replaced (as is normal)

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

36 minutes ago, Delta said:

They were punished fairly & squarely for gaining a competitive edge - They were docked points so that they were dragged from mid table into the periphery of the relegation scrap.  Any points deduction this season will be meaningless as they aren't going up and they aren't going down. (which probably makes it easy to implement a 3 point deduction).

The February 1st deadline suggests that it was aimed specifically at the January transfer window and nothing else.

Our total sales would probably be more than Brentford, Leeds & Norwich although I accept that often, a sold player would be replaced (as is normal)

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!

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

Quote

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.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

I don't know about that...ask Derby or Sheffield Wednesday if the case is/was closed. There's many lines of investigation possible here, allowed for by the FFP regs. They are pretty broad!

Because accounts being approved by the EFL in terms of the basic loss limit and being approved after investigation are two very different things.

Question 1 at the time of submission or initial assessment might be: "Is the loss after deductions, over or under £39m?" Simple Yes, No- Pass/Fail. The second part of it comes later, to investigate how that figure was reached!

It's not a clean slate, it's a reset to annual £13m losses- define what you mean by a clean slate? Agreed that clubs can't be punished twice in a sense, or in that sense.

Adams £12m Burnley- is that so unfair, dependent on the structure of the deal? Check it, it's widely reported that the bid came in on deadline day- the question whether it was a straight £12m or whether it was £x rising to £12m with certain targets being hit? We don't know! Birmingham fans talking of £8m, £9m offers are potentially mistaken however!

Debatable- Barcelona didn't need FFP to be such a fantastic side under Pep, that Real Madrid was at the turn of the 2010's, they shot up under Mourinho. Spent a hell of a lot mind you...Bayern have their good spells and their bad spells- however yes there was some quite significant dominance by English sides for a time, but other sides in Europe, or big hitters in Europe were also in transition a bit...FFP, Man City and PSG are two potentially huge culprits- hope they get what's coming to them if guilty.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

Quote

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.

But with the benefit of the pending ground sale, we were far from "on the cusp"

The situation is this:  After the play off final defeat to Fulham, the Sh%t well & truly hit the fan - We were looking at selling all of our assets.  Had teams come in with fair offers, players would have been sold.  As it was, no sensible offers were received so the players remained.

After the club was taken over, informal discussions took place with the EFL and the green light was given for us to enter the market again.  We spent modestly, acquiring a GK & McGinn for under £5m.  We also received circa £12m for loans that turned into permanents.  Naturally, we sealed a couple of loan deals to replace the loans that we had, had the previous season.  All this would have been done with the aproval of the EFL and with the knowledge that the ground sale would be taking place.  We didn't stumble on the ground sale in the 11th hour.  Whilst this all may have looked iffy from the outside, when the ground sale is factored in, everything was above board.

[downendcity]

29 minutes ago, Delta said:

You have done very well with your player development & recruitment.  Every player has his price and you had the luxury of naming yours for Kodjia, Reid, Webster, Bryan etc.  My point is that Birmingham didn't - Or at least don't appear to have.  Fire sales also give teams an unfair sporting advantage as well of course as giving the selling team an unfair disadvantage.

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"?

 

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Delta said:

But with the benefit of the pending ground sale, we were far from "on the cusp"

The situation is this:  After the play off final defeat to Fulham, the Sh%t well & truly hit the fan - We were looking at selling all of our assets.  Had teams come in with fair offers, players would have been sold.  As it was, no sensible offers were received so the players remained.

After the club was taken over, informal discussions took place with the EFL and the green light was given for us to enter the market again.  We spent modestly, acquiring a GK & McGinn for under £5m.  We also received circa £12m for loans that turned into permanents.  Naturally, we sealed a couple of loan deals to replace the loans that we had, had the previous season.  All this would have been done with the aproval of the EFL and with the knowledge that the ground sale would be taking place.  We didn't stumble on the ground sale in the 11th hour.  Whilst this all may have looked iffy from the outside, when the ground sale is factored in, everything was above board.

That was taxation and cash flow related, not FFP. Two very different things.

Didn't seem like it was well planned in advance to me, though only the EFL and your board/Purslow will know this. Is it even a fair price- has it taken into account impairment, Depreciation, adjustments therein? It's all up for debate!

Your loanees would've cost good  wages- loans generally are not free!! You are also not taking into account falling a) Parachute payments as they do fall quite sharply in Year 3, as Stoke will soon find out and b) The fact that your profits are reduced or were reduced from player sales. 

With the ground sale, you just about passed FFP, maybe by a few million. Without it though...some sort of adjustment to the price through an EFL commissioned valuation would change matters significantly.

Talking of valuation, these accounts when released will be very interesting, will be instructive.

Check the accounts...check the allowable losses.  You mention £12m, this is NOT the same as profit on disposal. Profit on Disposal is Fee Received Minus Remaining Book Value! Never mind the gross fees, what was the Profit on Disposal! Then again remaining amortisation for the year also falls off the cost when a player sold, which is an advantage of loanees.

I'll try and steer clear of Aston Villa related FFP stuff for 2 weeks or so, until your accounts for last season are out.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

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.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

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.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

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.

But in real business, owners are allowed to invest in and support their assets.  To me it seems ridiculous that someone is forbidden to do this just because some small clubs are owned by people who don't have the money to invest in their assets.  As I've said before, whenever a club is for sale, it is always the hope of their fans that they be bought by some wealthy arab.  I don't read many comments from fans hoping their club will be bought by a pauper who will run the club on a shoestring.

[Delta]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That was taxation and cash flow related, not FFP. Two very different things.

Didn't seem like it was well planned in advance to me, though only the EFL and your board/Purslow will know this. Is it even a fair price- has it taken into account impairment, Depreciation, adjustments therein? It's all up for debate!

Your loanees would've cost good  wages- loans generally are not free!! You are also not taking into account falling a) Parachute payments as they do fall quite sharply in Year 3, as Stoke will soon find out and b) The fact that your profits are reduced or were reduced from player sales. 

With the ground sale, you just about passed FFP, maybe by a few million. Without it though...some sort of adjustment to the price through an EFL commissioned valuation would change matters significantly.

Talking of valuation, these accounts when released will be very interesting, will be instructive.

Check the accounts...check the allowable losses.  You mention £12m, this is NOT the same as profit on disposal. Profit on Disposal is Fee Received Minus Remaining Book Value! Never mind the gross fees, what was the Profit on Disposal! Then again remaining amortisation for the year also falls off the cost when a player sold, which is an advantage of loanees.

I'll try and steer clear of Aston Villa related FFP stuff for 2 weeks or so, until your accounts for last season are out.

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).

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Delta said:

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).

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.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

So. What. Cut your cloth accordingly- sign cheaper, use youth more. You don't 'have' to replace loanees as such.

 

This

[Delta]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This

We did - Which is why haven't been charged, contrary to the kangaroo court on here.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Delta said:

We did - Which is why haven't been charged, contrary to the kangaroo court on here.

So what’s the problem then?  Although aren’t the PL still investigating?

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Delta said:

We did - Which is why haven't been charged, contrary to the kangaroo court on here.

Did you?

I have tried to stay away from this one but keep getting drawn back in- you haven't been charged but it still appears to be a live issue.

That's all that we can say about it but just because you haven't been charged yet, doesn't mean there are not significant question marks. I can't be bothered to list them again.

@Davefevs Investigating on behalf of EFL maybe? I still wonder about that valuation given the Impairment in 2015/16...

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Did you?

I have tried to stay away from this one but keep getting drawn back in- you haven't been charged but it still appears to be a live issue.

That's all that we can say about it but just because you haven't been charged yet, doesn't mean there are not significant question marks. I can't be bothered to list them again.

In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty.  You yourself were urging Birmingham to go to arbitration via some sports body in the early days.  Now you are claiming they are bang to rights (good job they didn't follow your earlier advice) and that arbitration is a non-starter.

Your opinions are just that - You know no more and no less than the rest of us

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Delta said:

In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty.  You yourself were urging Birmingham to go to arbitration via some sports body in the early days.  Now you are claiming they are bang to rights (good job they didn't follow your earlier advice) and that arbitration is a non-starter.

Your opinions are just that - You know no more and no less than the rest of us

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

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Delta said:

In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty.  You yourself were urging Birmingham to go to arbitration via some sports body in the early days.  Now you are claiming they are bang to rights (good job they didn't follow your earlier advice) and that arbitration is a non-starter.

Your opinions are just that - You know no more and no less than the rest of us

I'd have to look at that- doesn't sound like me given how fire and brimstone I can be about FFP. 

Could only have been if unfair punishments came about or unfairly falling on them but ignoring others, but I'm not too fussed about Birmingham 3 point deduction or not tbh. The legal position is unclear, I've read lots of things. Arbitration is how these disputes are settled if past precedence is anything to go by- the CAS by definition surely would be applicable, external courts- perhaps less so.

It's a live issue and I will try to wait a few weeks. Of course they are our opinions- as @Davefevs says the caveat is based on published info- but my gut feeling is that if and when relegated, this isn't the end of the FFP story for Aston Villa.

Could be as simple as there being a lot of unanswered questions!

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous