Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Delta - you have again failed to grasp all we are doing is putting forward views / opinions on a forum from stuff we’ve read, etc.  Much of it from respected people like Kieran Maguire, Swiss Ramble, etc.  When any club accounts come out or PL investigation is completed we’ll have our views again.

Why are you so worried about what little old Bristol City fans on a forum think?  

Are you involved at Villa, as another club’s fan seemed suspiciously “in the know” (or at least adamant of done nothing wrong) when he / she posted on here.

???

"failed to grasp"????????

That's ripe from the bloke who thinks the EFL are too scared to challenge us.

All hail the saving grace though - Mr P has 2 Villa mates who he has time for. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Delta said:

"failed to grasp"????????

That's ripe from the bloke who thinks the EFL are too scared to challenge us.

All hail the saving grace though - Mr P has 2 Villa mates who he has time for. ?

There are some certain concepts that you are perhaps failing to grasp in this debate, I agree with Dave.

When facts change, our minds might- but those accounts will enable fresh analysis.

Btw, yourself and the Derby fan aside, I've never known anyone join an opposition forum solely to debate FFP- the joys of modern football eh! ?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There are some certain concepts that you are perhaps failing to grasp in this debate, I agree with Dave.

When facts change, our minds might- but those accounts will enable fresh analysis.

To be fair, I'm not the one who claimed that Villa asked for £200m to be offset against the ground, I'm not the one who suggested that Birmingham should go to the CAS and I'm not the one who suggest that Villa claimed to the EFL that a pending sale of SJG would satisfy FFP.

But hey - If you think it's me who is failing to grasp anything then good luck to you _ I'll be delighted to have some of whatever it is that you're smoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Delta said:

"failed to grasp"????????

That's ripe from the bloke who thinks the EFL are too scared to challenge us.

All hail the saving grace though - Mr P has 2 Villa mates who he has time for. ?

Again if you read, I gave the rationale.

Why so defensive?

Why so worried?

And in contrast....why so confident that you are fully compliant?  Do you go on a charm offensive with all these too? ⏬⏬⏬

D725F592-84DB-4388-8FFC-502AF1D5D7EC.thumb.jpeg.0a51a9b71c2adb418a6309001b105df0.jpeg

Thats all we are asking.

When you come up with bollocks like you should be entitled to replace players like for like (and how unfair it would be to have to play “youngsters”) you sound like one of your fellow “entitled” fans.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Again if you read, I gave the rationale.

Why so defensive?

Why so worried?

And in contrast....why so confident that you are fully compliant?  Do you go on a charm offensive with all these too? ⏬⏬⏬

D725F592-84DB-4388-8FFC-502AF1D5D7EC.thumb.jpeg.0a51a9b71c2adb418a6309001b105df0.jpeg

Thats all we are asking.

When you come up with bollocks like you should be entitled to replace players like for like (and how unfair it would be to have to play “youngsters”) you sound like one of your fellow “entitled” fans.

 

We replaced players like for like in exactly the same way that you did. You didn't replace Reid with a youngster, Bryan, Webster etc.  Why should we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/02/2020 at 20:56, Delta said:

Villa are the one that you all want and most of you have said as much.  We've been called odius, cheats, deluded, refusing to acknowledge the existence of FFP, etc, etc.  We are certainly being made out to be the pantomine villain, despite most accusations coming in before the penny dropped re the ability to sell the ground.  It certainly comes across to me as vindictive retribution.  People have suggested that we should have been made to sell Grealish for £3m, ourselves and Derby be replaced by Leeds & WBA in the play off final and many other ranges of sanctions.  This despite the fact that we are not guilty of any wrongdoing.

The myth has grown to such an extent that many believe we're some ogre, turning a blind eye to all rules, safe in the knowledge that the EFL are too scared to challenge us.  It's ridiculous.

Our CEO sat on the original panel when FFP was first set up.  I have confidence that he knows what he is doing.  Yes, we are close to the limit but this is all down to a chancer who gambled with our club's entire existence.  It was that very first summer that did us the damage - After that, the player incomings were very modest.

I understand the frustrations at the apparent lethargy shown by the EFL but I'm convinced that a lot of communication and checking goes on behind the scenes - It isn't just a case of end of years figures being submitted and then the EFL deciding to have a look.  Certainly in our own case, I know that our CEO has been in constant communication with the EFL all the way through the season.  The EFL will have been aware of our situation - Especially in the 2 windows and will have given the all clear to make the moves we did.

Regarding the stadium sale - The opportunity was there for everyone.  We chose to take advantage of the opportunity.

It's worth repeating that Villa did not gain promotion through any financial advantage.  The big spending almost entirely failed.  No big money signings started the play off final last season, 4 loan players started, 2 home grown and 5 with a total value of less than £10m.

Look at these teams who are succeeding - It is nearly always the manager rather than the players: Leeds, WBA, Brentford,Norwich,Sheff U,Cardiff (Warnock).  Birmingham who spent all that money sacked their manager within a few weeks of the season, likewise Villa in 2016 (and again in 2018).  If we ever end up back down there, give me the right manager ahead of a war chest all day long.

Just a couple of points on this. I don’t get the arguement that having loan players is a way of pleading poverty, Tammy could easily have cost Villa c£4-5m for last season based on estimates for loan fees and assuming his wages are paid in full. However the bigger arguement is more conceptual, FFP exists to make the league more susbstainable, and clubs like Villa, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Reading have have used a loophole to bastardize it, to the detriment of other clubs playing within the spirt of the rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, reddevil said:

Just a couple of points on this. I don’t get the arguement that having loan players is a way of pleading poverty, Tammy could easily have cost Villa c£4-5m for last season based on estimates for loan fees and assuming his wages are paid in full. However the bigger arguement is more conceptual, FFP exists to make the league more susbstainable, and clubs like Villa, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Reading have have used a loophole to bastardize it, to the detriment of other clubs playing within the spirt of the rules.

So you can loan Tammy but we can't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Delta said:

We replaced players like for like in exactly the same way that you did. You didn't replace Reid with a youngster, Bryan, Webster etc.  Why should we?

You miss the debate.....again!!!

Your argument was that if you had to sell a player because of FFP you shouldn’t have resort to playing youngsters, you should be able to bring in someone equally as good.  If you can do that for free, then great.

We don’t have FFP to worry about, because we accept that when we sell a player for £7m (Flint) we can’t then go and spend another £7m on his replacement.  We go and buy Webster for £3.5m.  When we sell him for £20m (so glad it was Brighton rather than you!!), we can spend £7m on Kalas.  When we sell Reid for £9m, we buy Andi Weimann for £2m and Mo Eisa for £800k.  You see that when your costs outweighs your income, you have to make that money up somewhere.  And then we also rely on bringing Kelly (An 18 year old in) through because we sell a Joe Bryan....and sell him for £15m ahead of the end of our accounting period, and we report a profit.  You see, we are forced into bringing youngsters in.  Some will come through our academy like Reid, Bryan and Kelly.  Others like Flint we bought for 300k as a 22 year old late developer, Brownhill for youth development compensation.  We then develop them.  We accept that.  You see bitter that Grealish might have had to be sold.  But you’re a huge club, so that’s ok.

When we see your 18/19 accounts and they’ve been analysed by more (much more) experts than me in Kieran and Swiss, we’ll see what’s really happened.  Might all be fine, in which case you can sit their smugly.  But it does make you wonder why so many people have questioned your FFP position..

  • Flames 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Delta said:

So you can loan Tammy but we can't?

Yep, because:

  • he was 18 at the time, having made 2 senior sub appearances
  • he didn’t cost us a several £million loan fee
  • he didn’t cost us £50k plus in wages per week

We would love to have brought him back here last season (more so to piss you off probably), but guess what?  We accepted he was beyond our budget.  We would’ve liked him back when he was going to Swansea, but we accepted we couldn’tt afford it.

You obviously could.....

......or took the gamble you’d be promoted before the EFL would act if (if!!!) you did go over.

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You miss the debate.....again!!!

Your argument was that if you had to sell a player because of FFP you shouldn’t have resort to playing youngsters, you should be able to bring in someone equally as good.  If you can do that for free, then great.

We don’t have FFP to worry about, because we accept that when we sell a player for £7m (Flint) we can’t then go and spend another £7m on his replacement.  We go and buy Webster for £3.5m.  When we sell him for £20m (so glad it was Brighton rather than you!!), we can spend £7m on Kalas.  When we sell Reid for £9m, we buy Andi Weimann for £2m and Mo Eisa for £800k.  You see that when your costs outweighs your income, you have to make that money up somewhere.  And then we also rely on bringing Kelly (An 18 year old in) through because we sell a Joe Bryan....and sell him for £15m ahead of the end of our accounting period, and we report a profit.  You see, we are forced into bringing youngsters in.  Some will come through our academy like Reid, Bryan and Kelly.  Others like Flint we bought for 300k as a 22 year old late developer, Brownhill for youth development compensation.  We then develop them.  We accept that.  You see bitter that Grealish might have had to be sold.  But you’re a huge club, so that’s ok.

When we see your 18/19 accounts and they’ve been analysed by more (much more) experts than me in Kieran and Swiss, we’ll see what’s really happened.  Might all be fine, in which case you can sit their smugly.  But it does make you wonder why so many people have questioned your FFP position..

Great

Who said we had to sell players because of FFP though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, because:

  • he was 18 at the time, having made 2 senior sub appearances
  • he didn’t cost us a several £million loan fee
  • he didn’t cost us £50k plus in wages per week

We would love to have brought him back here last season (more so to piss you off probably), but guess what?  We accepted he was beyond our budget.  We would’ve liked him back when he was going to Swansea, but we accepted we couldn’tt afford it.

You obviously could.....

......or took the gamble you’d be promoted before the EFL would act if (if!!!) you did go over.

Interesting

Where have you sourced the wages that we were paying him from?

Likewise, where have you sourced the "several million" that we were paying for him from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

Interesting

Where have you sourced the wages that we were paying him from?

Likewise, where have you sourced the "several million" that we were paying for him from?

This article suggests the wages would have been c£2m for the season. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/tammy-abraham-wolves-aston-villa-15636578.amp In terms of a fee there is no evidence for this but fees for similar players like Nketiah have been quoted around £3m a season, hence why i said £4-5m was an estimate. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

Interesting

Where have you sourced the wages that we were paying him from?

Likewise, where have you sourced the "several million" that we were paying for him from?

FFS, none of us has his actual contract, but if we take Swansea’s loan, it was rumoured that a £5m loan fee, he’d just signed a £25k per week plus £25k per game (and other bonuses) contract, so Swansea had to pay him circa £50k per week because if they just paid his basic £25k, he was losing out on the opportunity to earn his bonuses.

This Forum is speculating stuff from a multitude of sources.  You don’t know unless you are at Villa, and neither do I.

But I do know that you don’t loan a multi-million pound asset out as a favour.  We’ve had enough loan business with Chelsea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delta said:

To be fair, I'm not the one who claimed that Villa asked for £200m to be offset against the ground, I'm not the one who suggested that Birmingham should go to the CAS and I'm not the one who suggest that Villa claimed to the EFL that a pending sale of SJG would satisfy FFP.

But hey - If you think it's me who is failing to grasp anything then good luck to you _ I'll be delighted to have some of whatever it is that you're smoking.

Oh dear, a range of different interpretations let's call them. 

The £200m for Villa Park speculation was angry and more importantly sourced from an ASTON VILLA fan or related PAGE. I even linked it earlier and I'm happy to do so again and look for the original. 

Birmingham to the CAS, is actually based on a genuine sports legal precedent. Put into Google 'Inter balance sheets at CAS'.

Uefa at that time stood accused of preferential treatment of certain clubs, in this instance Man City, PSG and maybe Inter, hence the case by AC Milan. The EFL at that time stood accused of preferential treatment of a variety of clubs while. Loose parallels. 

Grealish sale idea was just one of many methods speculating how Aston Villa might have met FFP. The ground sale and leasebacks hadn't fully come to light yet at that time.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As promised I have found those two links.

https://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/villa-sell-villa-park-to-themselves-for-56-7-million-why-so-cheap/

This was where it was referenced that they had previously said they were of the view that £200m could be reasonable.

Some key snippets below, some clear key snippets bolded.

Quote

It seems there might be some concern amongst the fans that the ground doesn’t on paper belong to Aston Villa, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, as when it comes to any future sale of the club, it would surely have to include Villa park?
So really, nothing has changed, except that we’ve balanced the book as regards to FFP.

I think it was pretty obvious this was going to happen, as nobody could see how we could possibly balance the books otherwise, but what is niggling me, is why so cheap?

Quote

As opposed to Villa Park, which is much loved throughout the game, even if it is a bit dated in places.

When the subject of Villa park being sold came up a few weeks ago, I said that I thought we could probably get away for selling at £200 million, purely because of it’s history and heritage. I think it’s still held more FA cup semis than any other stadium, if memory serves me right and although the trophy is somwhat devalued these days, it’s still important.
Putting a price on that sort of thing is really difficult.

So why only £56 odd million then?
Perhaps that was all that was needed, but this is a one-off thing and surely if the owners had bought it for say, £150 million, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t have, as it gives you a nice big FFP cushion to play with, bearing in mind no money has changed hands, except on paper?

There’s obviously a reason and perhaps it’s just that we didn’t want to be seen as taking the proverbial, in the way Derby have. Or maybe you have to demonstrate fair value, bearing in mind the price Sawaris and Edens paid for the whole club?
But that makes me wonder how Derby have got away with it?

https://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/thoughts-on-derby-and-are-we-selling-villa-park/

Quote

It seems the powers-that-be are going to clamp down on this sort of thing, but we all know how slow they move and in my opinion it would be a restiction of trade anyway, so you would assume it’s still an option for us, should we fail to get promoted.

The big question for me, is what is Villa Park worth?

The club is valued at £75-125 million, take your pick, it’s all about how much someone wants it.
But given that Villa Park is renowned as one of the finest traditional stadiums in the world, let alone England, you have to wonder what it might be valued at.

You might laugh, but I’d suggest £200 million on paper isn’t out of the question, given some of the figures I’ve seen in the financial world.
Classic stadiums aren’t ten a penny, after all.

Of course, all this assumes we don’t get promoted.
If we do, it won’t matter, at least in the short term anyway.

Make of this what you will...the author seems to be very crowing, across their two pieces?

For balance, they also state that it's as bent as it gets.

Quote

If so, to my mind, this is as legally bent as it gets.
You’re effectively selling the stadium to yourself.
Yet this sort of thing happens all the time in the financial world, as companies are seen as seperate entities from those who own them.
Indeed, it’s already happened in the English game.

They also fail to note that this shell company was actually formed in 2017 and merely moved from the direct group to the direct control of the owners...

Clearly though, the first time £200m was sourced by me, was from an Aston Villa related page! :)

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quelle surprise. 
A Villa fan in denial. 
Truth is pal, you were very very close to breaching the regs. It was widely acknowledged by the whole football world. 
You may have just gotten away with it. Just. 
Suck it up, be grateful that you might’ve just sneaked under, but don’t come here acting high and ******* mighty and that you weren’t pushing the line. Cuz you were. Very close. 

Edited by Harry
  • Like 4
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can see @Harry it's still not a resolved issue, last I've read on the Aston Villa FFP issue is that the PL haven't yet ratified the sale and leaseback, but obviously that doesn't indicate guilt either. 

Still a live case though I'm thinking, and given that Impaiment in 2016, I'm really wondering about the sale price, profit etc. As you rightly say, they appear to have been within a very close range. 

Could an adjustment to the £56.7m for Villa Park tip them into trouble again? Certainly for the 3 years to May 2019.

Could even be a case that any adjustment at all is the difference between compliance and overspend. Bigger the adjustment the buffer the overspend, the bigger the issue. 

Pride Park eg was sold for £81m with an independent valuation commissioned by them though the method or valuer was not stated in 2018 accounts. EFL commissioned valuation came to £49m or £50m. Similarly, Hillsborough at £60m feels overdone.

Villa Park at £56.7m, surely must be worth a close look by the EFL especially on their return, whenever that may be.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Harry said:

Quelle surprise. 
A Villa fan in denial. 
Truth is pal, you were very very close to breaching the regs. It was widely acknowledged by the whole football world. 
You may have just gotten away with it. Just. 
Suck it up, be grateful that you might’ve just sneaked under, but don’t come here acting high and ******* mighty and that you weren’t pushing the line. Cuz you were. Very close. 

Denial of what exactly?

There is nothing to deny.  We have broken no rules.  Being close to a threshold is a completely different thing to being over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Delta said:

Denial of what exactly?

There is nothing to deny.  We have broken no rules.  Being close to a threshold is a completely different thing to being over it.

What you don't seem to grasp is that your case is perhaps still live, albeit in a state of hiatus- suspended animation.

I'd say it's up in the air- just because you have not yet sanctioned rules doesn't mean that Investigations couldn't down the line prove it to be the case. I suspect even a small adjustment to the Villa Park sale and leaseback price could throw up problems, to May 2019 at least.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting is what I've seen on Twitter. This is NOT Aston Villa related but info about the FFP stuff.

Will try to find the original link later but...

ERA3Pc0XUAEJYIH?format=jpg&name=900x900

Looks as if the Sheffield Wednesday case has concluded, or at least the aspect in which they have challenged the lawfulness side of it. EFL vs Derby at the actual breach level, the actual Commission is ongoing.

What is also interesting is that Nick De Marco who seems to be quite prolific in these cases, is representing against the EFL- interesting as he works for Blackstone Chambers- the very company the EFL hired last Autumn as the Investigation developed/progressed. ?

Hi @29AR you seem to know about the law, or have done from past postings on here- big company sure but is it normal for lawyers  from same ultimate organisation or two different ones to be involved with both sides? Or one to be representing side A- say the club and one to be overseeing the panel? Charles Flint of Blackstone oversaw the Birmingham case for example- think he was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Commission.

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

@29AR you seem to know about the law, or have done from past postings on here- big company sure but is it normal for lawyers  from same ultimate organisation or two different ones to be involved with both sides? Or one to be representing side A- say the club and one to be overseeing the panel? Charles Flint of Blackstone oversaw the Birmingham case for example- think he was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Commission.

Hi Mr P. Yes, it's not uncommon at all, and to prevent conflicts you would set up 'Chinese Walls'. That just means you take every step to make sure each teams are of different staff, that there is no discussion of the case, no passing of info to the other side, and possibly even working in different offices. I have been in this situation myself dozens of times for M&A deals, and whilst it may feel like sides would talk, they really don't. I've never been under one which wasn't - if anything - over-zealously adhered to. 

It is probably more prevalent in M&A where you could have the same firms - lawyers, accountants etc - all acting for both sides just having independent teams. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What you don't seem to grasp is that your case is perhaps still live, albeit in a state of hiatus- suspended animation.

I'd say it's up in the air- just because you have not yet sanctioned rules doesn't mean that Investigations couldn't down the line prove it to be the case. I suspect even a small adjustment to the Villa Park sale and leaseback price could throw up problems, to May 2019 at least.

Of course I'm aware of this.  However, at this moment in time we are under.  Hence no action from the EFL/PL.

I'm confident that we'll remain under and with a projected overspend of around £25m (your figures), it would have to be a hefty hike on the ground sale to take us over.

You are hoping that we'll be dragged into it.  I see this as little more than straw clutching.  You've speculated all the way through this and being wrong every step of the way.

Out of interest, do you know what figure your lease is for AG?

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Delta said:

Of course I'm aware of this.  However, at this moment in time we are under.  Hence no action from the EFL/PL.

I'm confident that we'll remain under and with a projected overspend of around £25m (your figures), it would have to be a hefty hike on the ground sale to take us over.

You are hoping that we'll be dragged into it.  I see this as little more than straw clutching.  You've speculated all the way through this and being wrong every step of the way.

Out of interest, do you know what figure your lease is for AG?

EPL in recent times haven't had a good track record of enforcing punishment or holding clubs to account in any meaningful way- saw an article on it, but maybe that will change with Man City- or indeed the new EFL/PL alignment?

Profit on sale is price paid minus Value on Books...it isn't the fee you stick in the books, it's the profit. That profit due to the Impairment is questionable, this is the crux of the issue. Needs full exploration.

You may well technically be under but there are a lot of unknowns for you to say that you are in the clear,

This is patently incorrect...some of the 'wrong' claims that you have cited by me have come from VILLA pages! Links are there, go read them...the £200m a notable example.

Whataboutery. Besides which, we made no financial gain from the sale of AG, this was possibly a corporate restructure. Again though, what has rent got to do with it- I've not even mentioned how much you are or should be paying on Villa Park.

Corporate restructure or otherwise, it looks like it was an asset transfer- 2006. Just checked, I say 2006, was in the 2005/06 season- from Bristol City FC Limited to Ashton Gate Limited. No gain, no profit it would seem.

Check 2005/06 Bristol City Limited Accounts- it even states the asset transfer in them, if you scroll down to Page 13 of the accounts made up to 31st May 2006 for either, or both of Bristol City FC and Ashton Gate Limited, it's clearly stated.

Accounting regs may have allowed for it at that time, it will have been above board but there was no gain, no loss- merely an asset transfer. Imagine in League One had we done that and banked say a £10m profit in 2006...no FFP regs either, we could've run all over League One that year!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/02/2020 at 19:45, Mr Popodopolous said:

When I say replace, I mean replace perhaps numeriocally but not perhaps calibre or wage wise. Snodgrass goes out, in comes Bolasie and El Ghazi- granted the former left after half a season.

Out goes Grabban, in comes Tammy. Those are not terribly cheap.

I question the stadium sale owing to the Impairment in 2015/16 but I digress, the 2018/19 Accounts will be my new starting point.

Or if you get them in, you sell some key assets to help fund them in order to stick within the below.

It means that if a club are close to breaching FFP regs, you spend lower, you put more of an emphasis on youth and if you exceed these limits you- not just you tbh, any club, then they get dealt with accordingly.

Completely different and more complex case, but as we heard Friday evening. Man City banned for 2 years from European competition- feels pretty well deserved it must be said!

I am not in denial. FFP is a real concern to me. Our spend in the 2016-17 season was ...well reckless ?
But I would have to see evidence of wrongdoing before any action was taken against us.
And so far, I dont see any.

I would accept if we were charged and convicted and say the club would deserve any penalty.
I see only resentment that we brought good/high priced players. You have highlighted the the more high profile
arrivals at Aston Villa, but not mentioned where we sold international standard players and
had others taken off the wage bill. Transfers were a two-way activity. You pointed out Snodgrass
however we were only paying one third of his wages. Bolasie earns a kings ransom at Everton but i'm yet
to see proof that we were paying all of his retainer. I'm not convinced.

I know many opposing fans wanted to see us lose Grealish and as I said before it nearly did happen, but in
the Championship we should not be a selling club. Its a club that's going to aim to get back where it was. And we
did blood Green, Hepburn-Murphy & Davis our youth graduates but we cannot fill the team with them.
We were promoted relying our 3rd choice Goalkeeper.

I respect Bristol, hope you get promoted soon, but I'm here to stick up for my club. If I was satisfied that we had done
something wrong I'd be the first one to condemn.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I am not in denial. FFP is a real concern to me. Our spend in the 2016-17 season was ...well reckless ?
But I would have to see evidence of wrongdoing before any action was taken against us.
And so far, I dont see any.

I would accept if we were charged and convicted and say the club would deserve any penalty.
I see only resentment that we brought good/high priced players. You have highlighted the the more high profile
arrivals at Aston Villa, but not mentioned where we sold international standard players and
had others taken off the wage bill. Transfers were a two-way activity. You pointed out Snodgrass
however we were only paying one third of his wages. Bolasie earns a kings ransom at Everton but i'm yet
to see proof that we were paying all of his retainer. I'm not convinced.

I know many opposing fans wanted to see us lose Grealish and as I said before it nearly did happen, but in
the Championship we should not be a selling club
. Its a club that's going to aim to get back where it was. And we
did blood Green, Hepburn-Murphy & Davis our youth graduates but we cannot fill the team with them.
We were promoted relying our 3rd choice Goalkeeper.

I respect Bristol, hope you get promoted soon, but I'm here to stick up for my club. If I was satisfied that we had done
something wrong I'd be the first one to condemn.

Thank you for a considered and balanced response.

Fair- it's still in a bit of hiatus atm I think. Feels a bit like it anyway.

Well this is true, unsure why Everton making such losses would give a discounbt but I digress- if anything El Ghazi and Bolasie even if the latter for half a season might be a bit more costly than Snodgrass. It's arguable either way in some respects.

This bit I query. If a clubs finances dictate that they need to sell to hit FFP, then that is what they need to do. Like many at this level- the majority in fact. Leeds are a pretty big club...Wood got a major fee, they sold quite big this summer, thinking of it in a 3 year cycle. Doubtless their costs will have stepped up too- Nottingham Forest another example of a big club fallen on hard times who trade- trade maybe a better term. That is some and you get some credit for that, but while I agree you can't necessarily field a youth team, it's important for the integrity of the competition to see the regs adhered to, in real time. For example, if a Projected set of Accounts in March of the existing season shows a forecast overspend with no paper trail of say a stadium sale or more agreeably, player sales pre arranged in the summer...then points docked there and then.

T=Existing Season club Projected Accounts, and T-1 and T-2=Actual Published/Received Accounts. If a stadium sale that's different but then the EFL must commission an Independent valuation before the end of the season to get an adjustment in at the earliest if necessary. Needs rigorous real time monitoring...this might be coming into play now but under Harvey, there were significant shortcomings!!

Fair enough and thanks- you're clearly a big club and obviously people would to stick up for a club- it is always good to have opposition fans putting the counter view, nothing worse than an echo chamber!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few curiosities or unique elements about this case though, regardless of Profit and Loss. 

It's a bit of a watershed moment, for a few reasons.

1) First genuine test case of a side whose compliance up for debate promoted under the full 3 years of this new system in play. It was really effective from 2016/17. 3 year cycle. Fits perfectly.

2) The 2016 Impairment. How is and was this factored for in the sale price? No other club who have done this had this as a talking point so it's new ground on the Fair Value front. 

3) Press talk of a disconnect between PL and EFL. Rules are clear but different views on enforcement?

4) Approval. Was it gained, sought? Was any approval for the mere act, ie sale and leaseback or the price and EFL approved valuation too?

4) Interesting line last May about Aston Villa being in a soft embargo. This throws up a few possibilities ranging from maybe to laughable but here goes:

A) Was pure speculation.

B) There was one but EFL ratified and ask. 

C)  There was one but that rumoured disconnect meant it wasn't carried over to PL. 

D) There was one but Aston Villa did a Birmingham on steroids, ignoring it 110%!!

E) They miscalculated in a massive way by believing that 'pay the fine' was still the solution so spent accordingly as PL and EFL FFP used to be different, see the QPR debacle! 

5) This last bit is surely mischief making but anyway, Purslow miscalculated the harmonisation in the regulations. 

6) The EFL gave Aston Villa some bespoke deal due to how close they were to bankruptcy. 

7) As we saw with Birmingham, their Projected Accounts submitted in March 2018 showed decent transfer profits. Their real accounts to June 2018 did not...things were reworked and they were dealt with accordingly! What was in Aston Villa's submitted last March?

At that time, many clubs were rumoured to be in breach, see Al Majir blog, and he seems reputable, and the EFL were quite happy to try to let clubs back to balance if possible with minimum fuss. Rules of the game have changed significantly since then, the landscape has seen some big shifts.

I'd be surprised if the EFL don't have some searching questions if and when Aston Villa return basically. Could even argue duty-bound.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://almajir.net/2018/09/03/editorial-efl-questions/

This is from last year @Delta but it genuinely is worth a read. Al Majir is just one of the sources I use but the truth is that May 2019 you had the takeover and were fine for cash and not yet in breach of FFP- the soft embargo was FFP related in May 2019. The embargo was in summer 2018 as you had the significant cashflow issues...but those cashflow issues were distinct from FFP. Like Bolton in fact- whereas Birmingham had cash but were in FFP trouble.

Your 2018 embargo was a registration embargo for the reasons you state- insufficent money to pay bills, think there was something about a tax bill too. Both embargoes but two quite different types and reasons behind them.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...