Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Mr Popodopolous

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm intrigued by a 10 year ticket though, that is major loyalty levels for anyone taking one of those on!

It's a bargain! Basically, pay once and you're largely done. Minimum of 10 year, and various free extensions.

Not sure it makes much business sense, given the people likely to buy them would buy a ticket for their club in either the top flight or the Conference, but it does sound like cracking value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm intrigued by a 10 year ticket though, that is major loyalty levels for anyone taking one of those on!

How would the income be recorded though? Would it be spread over the seasons, our just the year the ticket was purchased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

It's a bargain! Basically, pay once and you're largely done. Minimum of 10 year, and various free extensions.

Not sure it makes much business sense, given the people likely to buy them would buy a ticket for their club in either the top flight or the Conference, but it does sound like cracking value.

Not looked at it in any detail but instinct is that its a good deal for the supporter and a short term fund raiser for the club.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's potentially really good value, especially as the 10 year period doesn't 'activate' until we get promoted to the Premier League. If that never happens you'd never need to buy one again, if you're young enough it could last 30, 40 years. The downside is that the really loyal fans have already purchased a 5 year season ticket which was made available 2 or 3 years ago, so they miss out.

The risk would be trusting that any future owner will continue to honour it if the club changes hands, which seems very likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Edited by Owl Visiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

How would the income be recorded though? Would it be spread over the seasons, our just the year the ticket was purchased?

It should be spread, but you could have some fun deciding how.

But this is Sheff Wed's accounting principles we are talking about, so.........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

It should be spread, but you could have some fun deciding how.

But this is Sheff Wed's accounting principles we are talking about, so.........

Indeed.

Good for immediate cashflow....perhaps they have cashflow issues on top?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

It should be spread, but you could have some fun deciding how.

But this is Sheff Wed's accounting principles we are talking about, so.........

 

42 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Indeed.

Good for immediate cashflow....perhaps they have cashflow issues on top?

This is sort of my point. How will it effect their income. and therefore their 3 year periods in future? They could get a big chunk now, but if they fail to get promoted, they could be losing out further down the line. How will they account for it and how will the EFL interpret it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

 

This is sort of my point. How will it effect their income. and therefore their 3 year periods in future? They could get a big chunk now, but if they fail to get promoted, they could be losing out further down the line. How will they account for it and how will the EFL interpret it? 

I’m no accountant, but I believe if you buy something that is over a number of years, then you have to apportion into each year’s accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m no accountant, but I believe if you buy something that is over a number of years, then you have to apportion into each year’s accounts.

I think that would be right, but the period that the amount should be apportioned over seems somewhat flexible according to the rules they have created.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the 10 year season ticket - Wasn't offering something along those lines, one of the contributing factors into Rangers' financial meltdown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, awbb said:

As far as the 10 year season ticket - Wasn't offering something along those lines, one of the contributing factors into Rangers' financial meltdown?

That rings bells actually, in a way it's like taking out a mortgage and then able to meet the repayments, in this case they are basically mortgaging their income over the next 10+ years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, awbb said:

As far as the 10 year season ticket - Wasn't offering something along those lines, one of the contributing factors into Rangers' financial meltdown?

Anyone remember the West Ham Bond scheme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

I think that would be right, but the period that the amount should be apportioned over seems somewhat flexible according to the rules they have created.

Quite! As Sheff Wed's FD I would be rubbing my hands at the opportunities to accelerate or decelerate income. However I suspect the numbers involved will be immaterial in the scale of things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do not go up, it is valid for a minimum of 11 years (1 yr in the championship, plus 10 if they went up), so they should recognise 1/11 of the price in the books. Each year they should repeat this, using 1/11 of the balance carried forwards from the previous year. This would continue until (if) they went up, at which point you would spread the remaining amount over 10 years 

  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ah yes, Kieran Maguire emailed them in June 2018?

@WarksRobin

I think (hope) that this laid back approach under the EFL was under the old regime and that Rick Parry etc is running a much tighter ship. 

Anything pretty much is an. Improvement on Harvey in his final year or two but going from Harvey to Parry is a strong indicator that the party is over. From 0-50 with a flick of a switch IMO! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/02/05/championship-war-fear-feuds-lost-points/

Shall look forward to reading this- @Davefevs @Coppello @chinapig @downendcity and sure there are a few more. Saw this one on a link and am about to read it now- @CyderInACan too!

Or not- behind a paywall as it is! :laugh:

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/02/05/championship-war-fear-feuds-lost-points/

Shall look forward to reading this- @Davefevs @Coppello @chinapig @downendcity and sure there are a few more. Saw this one on a link and am about to read it now- @CyderInACan too!

Or not- behind a paywall as it is! :laugh:

 

So Stoke's position is basically - we can afford it as our owner is loaded so fkuc everyone else and fkuc the rules? They should get a deduction just for being absolute see you next tuesdays TBH 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that @Barkhamred

'Amendment of the rules before next season'- hopefully it'll be to close the ground loophole for all! Wonder then if it could be disallowed retrospectively if changed...? Thinking largely Aston Villa here, whose case is live and ongoing, but it's sort of in hiatus as a) They are in the PL and b) Their accounts for last season are not out yet- though the PL/EFL may well have this info already, certainly should do.

It's panning out in a way I thought might be possible though...good to see that we have been listed as particularly vocal- like to think this thread has played a small part in some dim and distant way:whistle2: (of course it hasn't really, we all know that haha).

I thought Leeds and Nottingham Forest were also quite strongly pro the regulations too- especially Leeds.

Oh yeah, the rule change thing. I'd have hoped it's to close that loophole and maybe look at some more- most clubs are broadly in favour of it at this level not least as most comply, and it needs 18/24 to change a rule/regulation so those wanting a loosening surely have some lobbying to do!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the 18/24 must have voted in favour of the "ground loophole" in the first place?  

With regards to my own team (Villa), it is worth noting that within the ground area is a 19th century pub that is a listed building and had over £4 million spent on it around 10- 15 years ago.  Furthermore, at the other end is a large leisure centre that also adds value to the overall estate.  I know that many on here are hoping that Villa get punished in some way (a lot probably borne out of our acquisition of Kodjia) but I really think you will end up disappointed.  The sale was perfectly legitimate and was also for a fair market value.

FFP is in place in order to protect clubs from being left in the lurch by unscrupulous owners - It is not in place to ensure that all teams are on an even footing regarding transfers.  In our own case, we were owned by a chancer for the first 2 years of our Championship stay.  He literally gambled with the club's future.  New owners have now stepped in and have steadied the ship.  The very principles of FFP should mean that these people should not be penalised for trying to steady a ship that had almost sunk because of the reckless gambling of the previous charlaton owner.  It is also worth noting that within the side that beat Derby in last years play off final were 4 loanees, with another on the bench.  Apart from the first Championship season, Villa's spending was incredibly modest - Something that is often overlooked.  Furthermore, the income from sales over the 3 seasons in question would possibly be higher than the outlay on new players.  Certainly, the figures would be close.

It was clear from our January spending that we are currently close to the parameters of FFP but being close does not constitute being over.

Regarding Leeds, I'm sure that they are pro regulations given their owners don't have the financial clout to make a dent in any case.

Ultimately, if a person aquires a football club, he should be free to invest just as he would in any other business.  Those who have money don't complain - It's only those who don't who make noise.  Look at when clubs are up for sale and how giddy fans get when wealthy arabs are linked to a potential purchase.

For me, far too much is made of FFP and anyway, how many times does actually trowing money at a project work?  Obviously Chelsea & Man City have succeeded in the fairly recent past but certainly in Villa's case, the big spending did not procure success.  Indeed, were it not for a player who rose from within the youth system (Grealish), we would still be in the Championship today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post @Davefevs

I see comments underneath stating that the EFL authorised it. EFL...or Harvey? Two very different things!

Besides which, maybe they authorised the actual transaction in respect of 'Yes, you can sell and leaseback the stadium...' but that's it! Price can be adjusted, cases can be reopened retrospectively- or maybe there was an ambiguity- those conversations in summer 2018 would be fascinating to have seen, heard- have been a fly on the wall at.

Oh yeah, the Amortisation method thing- suppose the flipside might be that profits on players sold are lower under residual value though...definitely seems like it was more of a boost for Derby than not though.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point worth making/asking is do Championship sides actually want to play in the PL?

Currently, the gulf is so great that most teams end up coming straight back down.

Take Bournemouth for example.  Their turnover last season was more than twice that of Villa's - This being achieved on gates of less than 12,000.  This has been the case for the past 3 seasons so times that wealth by 3.  Even with a summer spend of way over £100,000,000 (by Villa), Bournemouth are still above Villa in the league.

I would imagine that most of you hold high hopes of gaining promotion via the play offs this season?  The overwhelming chances are that should you achieve this, you would go back down the following season, probably finishing bottom.  Where's the fun in that?  It is certainly short lived.  All hail the saving grace though - You gained promotion whilst not losing more than £13,000,000 per season.

My feeling is that instead of beating this tireless FFP drum constantly, Championship clubs ought to be focusing on ways of giving their sides a fighting chance should promotion be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Delta said:

Another point worth making/asking is do Championship sides actually want to play in the PL?

Currently, the gulf is so great that most teams end up coming straight back down.

Take Bournemouth for example.  Their turnover last season was more than twice that of Villa's - This being achieved on gates of less than 12,000.  This has been the case for the past 3 seasons so times that wealth by 3.  Even with a summer spend of way over £100,000,000 (by Villa), Bournemouth are still above Villa in the league.

I would imagine that most of you hold high hopes of gaining promotion via the play offs this season?  The overwhelming chances are that should you achieve this, you would go back down the following season, probably finishing bottom.  Where's the fun in that?  It is certainly short lived.  All hail the saving grace though - You gained promotion whilst not losing more than £13,000,000 per season.

My feeling is that instead of beating this tireless FFP drum constantly, Championship clubs ought to be focusing on ways of giving their sides a fighting chance should promotion be achieved.

In the last 5 maybe 10 years most teams don’t come back down they stay up for a number of seasons

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Delta said:

Another point worth making/asking is do Championship sides actually want to play in the PL?

Currently, the gulf is so great that most teams end up coming straight back down.

Take Bournemouth for example.  Their turnover last season was more than twice that of Villa's - This being achieved on gates of less than 12,000.  This has been the case for the past 3 seasons so times that wealth by 3.  Even with a summer spend of way over £100,000,000 (by Villa), Bournemouth are still above Villa in the league.

I would imagine that most of you hold high hopes of gaining promotion via the play offs this season?  The overwhelming chances are that should you achieve this, you would go back down the following season, probably finishing bottom.  Where's the fun in that?  It is certainly short lived.  All hail the saving grace though - You gained promotion whilst not losing more than £13,000,000 per season.

My feeling is that instead of beating this tireless FFP drum constantly, Championship clubs ought to be focusing on ways of giving their sides a fighting chance should promotion be achieved.

I read (or possibly heard on one of the many football podcasts I listen to!) recently that TV money provides 89% of Bournemouth's income. They could be in big trouble if they are relegated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Delta said:

Another point worth making/asking is do Championship sides actually want to play in the PL?

Currently, the gulf is so great that most teams end up coming straight back down.

Take Bournemouth for example.  Their turnover last season was more than twice that of Villa's - This being achieved on gates of less than 12,000.  This has been the case for the past 3 seasons so times that wealth by 3.  Even with a summer spend of way over £100,000,000 (by Villa), Bournemouth are still above Villa in the league.

I would imagine that most of you hold high hopes of gaining promotion via the play offs this season?  The overwhelming chances are that should you achieve this, you would go back down the following season, probably finishing bottom.  Where's the fun in that?  It is certainly short lived.  All hail the saving grace though - You gained promotion whilst not losing more than £13,000,000 per season.

My feeling is that instead of beating this tireless FFP drum constantly, Championship clubs ought to be focusing on ways of giving their sides a fighting chance should promotion be achieved.

Yes I want to see us in The Premiership, but not if it means the future financial stability of our club is compromised. Our previous experience of that lives at the forefront of my mind at least. I guess many others feel the same, which is why many feel sticking within FFP is the fairest way of going about our business. Although ultimately that decision lies with our owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

In the last 5 maybe 10 years most teams don’t come back down they stay up for a number of seasons

In the last 6, the play off winners have all come back down.  Wolves had gone way over FFP and would also have been in trouble if their gamble backfired.  Newcastle continued to operate as a PL club.  Bournemouth & Leicester also operated outside of the parameters of FFP.  That leaves Brighton, Burnley & Watford who are still in the PL.

However, since the big money started coming in 3 seasons ago, Hull, Boro,  Fulham, Cardiff and Huddersfield have all come back down.  This season add Norwich and one of Brighton, Villa or Bournemouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

Yes I want to see us in The Premiership, but not if it means the future financial stability of our club is compromised. Our previous experience of that lives at the forefront of my mind at least. I guess many others feel the same, which is why many feel sticking within FFP is the fairest way of going about our business. Although ultimately that decision lies with our owner.

Therein lies the gamble.  Not knowing what your owner could/would be prepared to risk throwing it at a promotion challenge, I can't comment.  However, should you manage promotion, your income would increase many fold, placing your previous gambled money as a good investment. (Not overlooking the fact that you'd qualify for parachute payments if you went back down).

My own club were at the point where we couldn't pay bills, couldn't sign players and were looking at all players of value leaving just 18 months ago due to the gamble failing.  However - The person responsible for the gamble was never going to suffer as he would just walk away, leaving us in the mire - How did FFP protect Villa?

Your team would struggle in the PL - Look at the impact Reid, Bryan and to a sesser extent Webster (who I read being criticised by Brighton fans recently).  The gap is bigger than it's ever been and is only going one way.  Somehow, Championship sides need to be able to compete otherwise it will just go the way of the big 3 or 4 in the PL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Delta said:

Surely the 18/24 must have voted in favour of the "ground loophole" in the first place?  

With regards to my own team (Villa), it is worth noting that within the ground area is a 19th century pub that is a listed building and had over £4 million spent on it around 10- 15 years ago.  Furthermore, at the other end is a large leisure centre that also adds value to the overall estate.  I know that many on here are hoping that Villa get punished in some way (a lot probably borne out of our acquisition of Kodjia) but I really think you will end up disappointed.  The sale was perfectly legitimate and was also for a fair market value.

FFP is in place in order to protect clubs from being left in the lurch by unscrupulous owners - It is not in place to ensure that all teams are on an even footing regarding transfers.  In our own case, we were owned by a chancer for the first 2 years of our Championship stay.  He literally gambled with the club's future.  New owners have now stepped in and have steadied the ship.  The very principles of FFP should mean that these people should not be penalised for trying to steady a ship that had almost sunk because of the reckless gambling of the previous charlaton owner.  It is also worth noting that within the side that beat Derby in last years play off final were 4 loanees, with another on the bench.  Apart from the first Championship season, Villa's spending was incredibly modest - Something that is often overlooked.  Furthermore, the income from sales over the 3 seasons in question would possibly be higher than the outlay on new players.  Certainly, the figures would be close.

It was clear from our January spending that we are currently close to the parameters of FFP but being close does not constitute being over.

Regarding Leeds, I'm sure that they are pro regulations given their owners don't have the financial clout to make a dent in any case.

Ultimately, if a person aquires a football club, he should be free to invest just as he would in any other business.  Those who have money don't complain - It's only those who don't who make noise.  Look at when clubs are up for sale and how giddy fans get when wealthy arabs are linked to a potential purchase.

For me, far too much is made of FFP and anyway, how many times does actually trowing money at a project work?  Obviously Chelsea & Man City have succeeded in the fairly recent past but certainly in Villa's case, the big spending did not procure success.  Indeed, were it not for a player who rose from within the youth system (Grealish), we would still be in the Championship today.

Grealish largely yes but also spending beyond your means. 

Villa Park is the one valuation of the 5 I struggle with. Madejski Stadium and St Andrews? Undervalued if anything IMO. Hillsborough and Pride Park overpriced surely.

Villa Park? On one hand it seems in line but how are we, indeed how are you factoring in the nearly £45m Impairment which happened during your relegation season!

How is,  how was that justified? Certainly it raises eyebrows as most relegated sides don't slash 40-45% off the book value? Overall ie before not after depreciation! 

If the impairment not justified or justifiable then that surely impacts the profit on transaction. If it was, then this could impact the sale price. 

Was clearly done so that Xia could buy club at a more realistic or affordable/competitive price but justifying it in accounting, and then in layer 2 for FFP? I'm not so sure!

Not even mentioned the timely ie at CH 2 weeks before the deadline removal of NSWE Stadium Limited or whatever it was called at that time from the NSWE UK (formerly Recon Group) and put under the direct control of the owners. 

Far from sure that the EFL but especially the other 23 clubs will be happy to leave it there!

One more thing. Purslow last summer purportedly wanted a public statement by the EFL announcing that FFP had been complied with. Certainly none was forthcoming.

If you're in the clear then how come the PL haven't yet approved the sale price, profit?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Delta said:

In the last 6, the play off winners have all come back down.  Wolves had gone way over FFP and would also have been in trouble if their gamble backfired.  Newcastle continued to operate as a PL club.  Bournemouth & Leicester also operated outside of the parameters of FFP.  That leaves Brighton, Burnley & Watford who are still in the PL.

However, since the big money started coming in 3 seasons ago, Hull, Boro,  Fulham, Cardiff and Huddersfield have all come back down.  This season add Norwich and one of Brighton, Villa or Bournemouth.

But they don’t come right back down as you suggest, they stay there for a number of seasons,

if we are an established championship club the. You have to class the likes of Bournemouth as an established prem club,

anyone from arsenal down could go down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Grealish largely yes but also spending beyond your means. 

Villa Park is the one valuation of the 5 I struggle with. Madejski Stadium and St Andrews? Undervalued if anything IMO. Hillsborough and Pride Park overpriced surely.

Villa Park? On one hand it seems in line but how are we of you factoring in the nearly £45m Impairment which happened during your relegation season!

How is,  how was that justified? Certainly it raises eyebrows as most relegated sides don't slash 40-45% off the book value? Overall ie before not after depreciation! 

If the impairment not justified or justifiable then that surely impacts the profit on transaction. If it was, then this could impact the sale price. 

Was clearly done so that Xia could buy club at a more realistic or affordable/competitive price but justifying it in accounting, and then in layer 2 for FFP? I'm not so sure!

As I said, spending beyond our means was restricted to our first season in the Championship.  The second Summer, we spent less than £3 million although we also paid the wages of JT who also joined that season.  On the flip side, we got more than that from your good selves for Baker alone.  On top of that, we also gained another £10 million in sales (excluding Baker).  I have excluded loan fees as we would have both paid out and received these fees.

The following season, we were on the point of points deduction for much of the summer before signing McGinn and Nyland for just over £5 million.  Again though, our income from sales was double our outlay on players (£10 million +).  We then made another Goalkeeper signing in January for £5 million.

By the time of our play off final against Derby, 4 players were loanees, one player cost nothing as he was part of a cash plus player deal, a further  2 cost nothing as they were home grown, leaving the remaining costing less than £10 million.  That is an entire side that cost less than £10 million.  How could we have possibly spent less? Especially given that we received more for player sales that season.

The £45 million lost in our relegation season does not really impact FFP because you can make a higher loss in the PL.  Xia paid about £120 million for Villa.  Even today with increased revenues, not many, if any Championship sides would fetch that.

Edited by Delta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to add, for any club who has been proven to have been guilty of breaching FFP and perhaps cheating enroute to promotion. 

In addition to the appropriate points penalty- overspend, mitigation, aggravating etc, based on the tariff system they should also forfeit their parachute payments or the right to have them count as FFP income. 

Perhaps on a sliding scale, ie the bigger the breach the bigger the removal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Delta said:

Surely the 18/24 must have voted in favour of the "ground loophole" in the first place?  

With regards to my own team (Villa), it is worth noting that within the ground area is a 19th century pub that is a listed building and had over £4 million spent on it around 10- 15 years ago.  Furthermore, at the other end is a large leisure centre that also adds value to the overall estate.  I know that many on here are hoping that Villa get punished in some way (a lot probably borne out of our acquisition of Kodjia) but I really think you will end up disappointed.  The sale was perfectly legitimate and was also for a fair market value.

FFP is in place in order to protect clubs from being left in the lurch by unscrupulous owners - It is not in place to ensure that all teams are on an even footing regarding transfers.  In our own case, we were owned by a chancer for the first 2 years of our Championship stay.  He literally gambled with the club's future.  New owners have now stepped in and have steadied the ship.  The very principles of FFP should mean that these people should not be penalised for trying to steady a ship that had almost sunk because of the reckless gambling of the previous charlaton owner.  It is also worth noting that within the side that beat Derby in last years play off final were 4 loanees, with another on the bench.  Apart from the first Championship season, Villa's spending was incredibly modest - Something that is often overlooked.  Furthermore, the income from sales over the 3 seasons in question would possibly be higher than the outlay on new players.  Certainly, the figures would be close.

It was clear from our January spending that we are currently close to the parameters of FFP but being close does not constitute being over.

Regarding Leeds, I'm sure that they are pro regulations given their owners don't have the financial clout to make a dent in any case.

Ultimately, if a person aquires a football club, he should be free to invest just as he would in any other business.  Those who have money don't complain - It's only those who don't who make noise.  Look at when clubs are up for sale and how giddy fans get when wealthy arabs are linked to a potential purchase.

For me, far too much is made of FFP and anyway, how many times does actually trowing money at a project work?  Obviously Chelsea & Man City have succeeded in the fairly recent past but certainly in Villa's case, the big spending did not procure success.  Indeed, were it not for a player who rose from within the youth system (Grealish), we would still be in the Championship today.

A lot of fans make the mistake of thinking that ffp was introduced to create a level playing field, but as you point out it was indeed introduced to prevent reckless owners spending beyond a club's means and to prevent the sort of situation that developed following Pompey's relegation from the Premier League.

The crucial issue with ffp is that it matters not the ability of an owner(s) to financial support his/her club, but that all clubs have "signed up" to the financial rules. You say that City fans are hoping Villa get punished in some way because of your acquisition of Kodjia. That is not the issue, not least because most City fans could see that Kodjia wanted away and were frankly amazed by the amount Villa paid to sign him.

The real issue is that  City, along with the majority of Championship clubs, have made major changes to their overall strategy and finances in order to comply with the requirements of ffp, and in particular the revised rules, even though it compromised their competitiveness on the pitch - over the last 3 seasons we have continually had to sell our best players in order to meet ffp requirements. However, at the same time it seems that some clubs have continued to operate on the basis of maximising on field competitiveness, even if it compromised ffp limits. After the sale of Pride Park became public knowledge, Derby's owner commented that they had pushed the financial limits because otherwise they would not have been competitive!

From the outside looking in, it appeared that Villa made a concerted effort to return quickly to the premier league following relegation, and with the benefit of parachute payments ( already going a substantial financial advantage over most championship clubs) were able to retain or bring in players to maintain a strong squad. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read that Villa ( like West Brom) borrowed against the third year's parachute payments in the second season back in the championship. If so, then you were really pushing the boat out financially and that would have been a major risk agains the upcoming ffp assessment. 

As for the stadium " sale", as with Derby's much publicised situation, there will be much debate on the valuation and whether it represented fair value, but the simpler question I have raised when discussing Derby's situation ( and is applicable to every club that has done the same)  is why would any club "sell" it's ground, other than it being the only option left to them to avoid an ffp breach and the punitive sanctions now available to the EFL. Had you breached ffp when assessed in March last season ( which might have been the case without he profit from the sale of Villa Park) then a points deduction would almost certainly have kept you out of the play offs ( as it would Derby in the same situation). Guess which club would have into 6th place instead?

In your last paragraph you ask " how often does throwing money at a project work?". Given all I've mentioned above and given that each Saturday we all see Villa on MOTD, I think we would answer Q.E.D.

 

  • Flames 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

A lot of fans make the mistake of thinking that ffp was introduced to create a level playing field, but as you point out it was indeed introduced to prevent reckless owners spending beyond a club's means and to prevent the sort of situation that developed following Pompey's relegation from the Premier League.

The crucial issue with ffp is that it matters not the ability of an owner(s) to financial support his/her club, but that all clubs have "signed up" to the financial rules. You say that City fans are hoping Villa get punished in some way because of your acquisition of Kodjia. That is not the issue, not least because most City fans could see that Kodjia wanted away and were frankly amazed by the amount Villa paid to sign him.

The real issue is that  City, along with the majority of Championship clubs, have made major changes to their overall strategy and finances in order to comply with the requirements of ffp, and in particular the revised rules, even though it compromised their competitiveness on the pitch - over the last 3 seasons we have continually had to sell our best players in order to meet ffp requirements. However, at the same time it seems that some clubs have continued to operate on the basis of maximising on field competitiveness, even if it compromised ffp limits. After the sale of Pride Park became public knowledge, Derby's owner commented that they had pushed the financial limits because otherwise they would not have been competitive!

From the outside looking in, it appeared that Villa made a concerted effort to return quickly to the premier league following relegation, and with the benefit of parachute payments ( already going a substantial financial advantage over most championship clubs) were able to retain or bring in players to maintain a strong squad. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read that Villa ( like West Brom) borrowed against the third year's parachute payments in the second season back in the championship. If so, then you were really pushing the boat out financially and that would have been a major risk agains the upcoming ffp assessment. 

As for the stadium " sale", as with Derby's much publicised situation, there will be much debate on the valuation and whether it represented fair value, but the simpler question I have raised when discussing Derby's situation ( and is applicable to every club that has done the same)  is why would any club "sell" it's ground, other than it being the only option left to them to avoid an ffp breach and the punitive sanctions now available to the EFL. Had you breached ffp when assessed in March last season ( which might have been the case without he profit from the sale of Villa Park) then a points deduction would almost certainly have kept you out of the play offs ( as it would Derby in the same situation). Guess which club would have into 6th place instead?

In your last paragraph you ask " how often does throwing money at a project work?". Given all I've mentioned above and given that each Saturday we all see Villa on MOTD, I think we would answer Q.E.D.

I don't know if you've read my other posts but at the risk of repeating myself, throwing money at the project did not work for Villa and ultimately, we were dragged up almost single handedly by a home grown player who by the grace of God did not leave in the turbulent summer of 2018.  Our entire play off final team cost less than £10 million.

I'm not quite sure exactly what Villa have done to incur the wrath of so many on here but presumed that it was Kodjia as apart from that, we've never had any interaction.  Villa paid the going rate for Kodjia and it's worth noting that in the January of that season, we also sold 2 forwards who were with us in the PL (both returning to the PL).  These sales  bought in more money than we paid out for Kodjia.

For a team like Villa coming down, it is always going to be difficult to adjust initially and when you factor in the wages we were committed to paying Agbonlahor and Richards (£5 million a year), we were always going to be up against it.  Many of the PL players wanted out as their wages had been halved but we couldn't shift them all in 1 window - It took 3 (14 months).

Yes, Villa borrowed heavily, often calling in transfer fees early for reduced payments.  The fans were told that there was a 2 year project and if that failed, there was a plan B.  In reality there was no plan B and our owner literally gambled with our club's future.  We didn't make those decisions and the person responsible bolted - Leaving us to sink or swim.  Luckily, we were saved by 2 tremendous owners who deserve support from the EFl for potentially saving a club.  They certainly don't need punishing - What message would that send out?

As for VP.  Again, I repeat myself.  There is a prestigous pub at one end and a leisure centre at the other.  The hospitality options are among the best in the country.  If anything the ground was undervalued.

Bottom line is that Villa overspent.  The ground sale meant that we have operated within the realms of FFP so will not be facing any sanctions now or in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Delta said:

 

unlike others I feel your owners are honorable people and did what they thought best.

I would like to see any stadium sale is to the the PL/EFL (we don't lose any grounds) and they cant sell them.

    no lost grounds(stadiums)

    grounds still upgraded by the club (increasing income)

    rent based on league position changed  monthly

Players owners can spend what they want and buy their moment in the sun (happy days).

fan hits da shite

ILR get paid first(no tax payer impacted)

little man second

players third 

owners (to quote @TomF's footer ) "whateversleft" .

that would stop the arseholes 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delta said:

Therein lies the gamble.  Not knowing what your owner could/would be prepared to risk throwing it at a promotion challenge, I can't comment.  However, should you manage promotion, your income would increase many fold, placing your previous gambled money as a good investment. (Not overlooking the fact that you'd qualify for parachute payments if you went back down).

My own club were at the point where we couldn't pay bills, couldn't sign players and were looking at all players of value leaving just 18 months ago due to the gamble failing.  However - The person responsible for the gamble was never going to suffer as he would just walk away, leaving us in the mire - How did FFP protect Villa?

Your team would struggle in the PL - Look at the impact Reid, Bryan and to a sesser extent Webster (who I read being criticised by Brighton fans recently).  The gap is bigger than it's ever been and is only going one way.  Somehow, Championship sides need to be able to compete otherwise it will just go the way of the big 3 or 4 in the PL.

No, therein dies not lie the gamble. You either break the rules or you don’t. A bit like when people bemoan their bad luck for being caught speeding, or shoplifting, or any other offence.
Them’s the rules. Stick by them and even when you burst out of their jurisdiction you need not fear crashing back down to the Championship 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

No, therein dies not lie the gamble. You either break the rules or you don’t. A bit like when people bemoan their bad luck for being caught speeding, or shoplifting, or any other offence.
Them’s the rules. Stick by them and even when you burst out of their jurisdiction you need not fear crashing back down to the Championship 😃

No rules have been broken. The (legitimate) sale of the ground means that despite extremely difficult circumstances, Villa have operated within the realms of FFP, pursuant to the regulations.

If you want to keep on banging on about regulations, you have to accept that at least 18/24 EFL clubs voted to include an ability for clubs to sell their own stadiums.   Hence it being permitted.  Your only hope (or straw to clutch at) is that VP was over valued.  I think you will find that if anything, it was under valued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Delta said:

No rules have been broken. The (legitimate) sale of the ground means that despite extremely difficult circumstances, Villa have operated within the realms of FFP, pursuant to the regulations.

If you want to keep on banging on about regulations, you have to accept that at least 18/24 EFL clubs voted to include an ability for clubs to sell their own stadiums.   Hence it being permitted.  Your only hope (or straw to clutch at) is that VP was over valued.  I think you will find that if anything, it was under valued.

Fair enough. Your day of reckoning could come next season. There again it may not. Until the authorities tell us one way or another, this is all a bit futile. One thing that is concrete up until now, is that my club have stuck within the rules, and has been judged accordingly for each season by the EFL. I’m not sure you can say the same with any certainty 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Delta said:

As I said, spending beyond our means was restricted to our first season in the Championship.  The second Summer, we spent less than £3 million although we also paid the wages of JT who also joined that season.  On the flip side, we got more than that from your good selves for Baker alone.  On top of that, we also gained another £10 million in sales (excluding Baker).  I have excluded loan fees as we would have both paid out and received these fees.

The following season, we were on the point of points deduction for much of the summer before signing McGinn and Nyland for just over £5 million.  Again though, our income from sales was double our outlay on players (£10 million +).  We then made another Goalkeeper signing in January for £5 million.

By the time of our play off final against Derby, 4 players were loanees, one player cost nothing as he was part of a cash plus player deal, a further  2 cost nothing as they were home grown, leaving the remaining costing less than £10 million.  That is an entire side that cost less than £10 million.  How could we have possibly spent less? Especially given that we received more for player sales that season.

The £45 million lost in our relegation season does not really impact FFP because you can make a higher loss in the PL.  Xia paid about £120 million for Villa.  Even today with increased revenues, not many, if any Championship sides would fetch that.

We're cross purposes! 

Your operating loss in 2017/18 for Recon Group was £50m! £50m!!

No issue with that and that includes all allowable costs, profit on transfer offsets this but this was with £30-35m of parachute payments. 

Once again, your PL loss doesn't affect FFP, the write-down but it does affect or could well affect the profit on Villa Park- or value.

£50m operating Ioss. Your Parachute Payments as with everyone's drop in Year 3. Less income=higher shortfall

The Impairment of Villa Park didn't count for FFP, which is fine as the 3 years to 31st May 2018 you seemed to be compliant.

Your summer 2018 issues were largely cash flow, not necessarily FFP at that stage. You were still technically compliant, but surely soon to breach. 

You could've sold more players, you could've signed less. Your loan signings last season won't have come cheap. You spent nearly £10m in January 2019 (amortised, granted). 

How much do you think you raised in sales last season? Bear in mind those operating losses the year before the Parachute Payments fell dramatically as they do in Year 3! 

Profit on Transfers goes like this. Proceeds of Sale ie fee Minus Remaining Net Book Value after amortisation. That figure is the profit- or loss! Of course sales also lead to reduction in amortisation and wage costs, which helps.

Was that £120m gross or inclusive of a £30m payment on promotion? Seem to recall something about a £30m payment due to Lerner, possibly as part of the deferred sale price. I digress, was a lot either way.

Do you think that the a) Sale price or b) Profit on Villa Pa

@reddoh

Kind of agree about the Aston Villa owners. Not Purslow however, or for that matter a decent chunk of Aston Villa fans, social media amplified though it could be!

On a general note, I am surprised that the Aston Villa fan is so confident punishment will be avoided. It may well be but I rather suspect that it'll be down to a) Accounting regulation interpretations, b) How accounting crosses over with FFP c) How EFL view the submitted accounts d) How other clubs view it. 

In fact, d) is quite important. Other clubs pressing can cause issues.. Ask Derby, Sheffield Wednesday- or after the Pedersen soft embargo breach, Birmingham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, apologies.  It was Lerner who paid £120 million for the club.  Xia got it for around£60 million (if I recall correctly) with, as you say, a clause if promotion was achieved within 3 years.

I don't think the PL loss had any impact whatsoever on the value of VP.  The club's value may have dropped but the stadium is a separate entity.

We could not have sold players without offers coming in and players being willing to move.  It is not that simple.  We were likely one of the highest payers in the Championship with most aging players on good contracts.  It's noteworthy that upon our promotion ;last year, something like 10 players left the club for nothing, either by way of mutual agreement or because their contracts had run down.  In the final days of Xia, every player was available for transfer but as I say, without bids, nothing could be done.  Apart from Grealish and Chester (who was linked to Stoke) nobody really had a resale value of note.  Furthermore, it would appear that the EFL did not instruct Villa to make any sales, as has been the case in other similar issues.

It was only once the club was sold that we were able to buy a couple of players and bring in loans.  This would have certainly been after obtaining the green light from the EFL to do so.  I know it makes good reading to claim that Villa were a law unto themselves, our fans are arrogant, Prince William had clout etc, etc but all that is rather silly.  The bottom line is that discussions would have taken place that summer and even at that point, the sale of VP would have been discussed and factored in.

I am confident that we are compliant because the owners would not have risked a points deduction and potential hefty fine by blithely carrying on in the transfer market unless cleared to do so by the EFL.  The sale of VP was a fair price when factoring in the other buildings/businesses that form part of the estate.  The ground is iconic with a wide array of modern hospitality areas.  I would imagine (and this is just me) that the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant.  During that summer, promotion looked a distant goal.  We only really scraped it, hitting form for the last 3 months of the season, thanks almost entirely to the return of Grealish after injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Delta said:

Firstly, apologies.  It was Lerner who paid £120 million for the club.  Xia got it for around£60 million (if I recall correctly) with, as you say, a clause if promotion was achieved within 3 years.

I don't think the PL loss had any impact whatsoever on the value of VP.  The club's value may have dropped but the stadium is a separate entity.

We could not have sold players without offers coming in and players being willing to move.  It is not that simple.  We were likely one of the highest payers in the Championship with most aging players on good contracts.  It's noteworthy that upon our promotion ;last year, something like 10 players left the club for nothing, either by way of mutual agreement or because their contracts had run down.  In the final days of Xia, every player was available for transfer but as I say, without bids, nothing could be done.  Apart from Grealish and Chester (who was linked to Stoke) nobody really had a resale value of note.  Furthermore, it would appear that the EFL did not instruct Villa to make any sales, as has been the case in other similar issues.

It was only once the club was sold that we were able to buy a couple of players and bring in loans.  This would have certainly been after obtaining the green light from the EFL to do so.  I know it makes good reading to claim that Villa were a law unto themselves, our fans are arrogant, Prince William had clout etc, etc but all that is rather silly.  The bottom line is that discussions would have taken place that summer and even at that point, the sale of VP would have been discussed and factored in.

I am confident that we are compliant because the owners would not have risked a points deduction and potential hefty fine by blithely carrying on in the transfer market unless cleared to do so by the EFL.  The sale of VP was a fair price when factoring in the other buildings/businesses that form part of the estate.  The ground is iconic with a wide array of modern hospitality areas.  I would imagine (and this is just me) that the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant.  During that summer, promotion looked a distant goal.  We only really scraped it, hitting form for the last 3 months of the season, thanks almost entirely to the return of Grealish after injury.

....but this is the core of the problem.

The whole ethos of ffp is that a club's day to day financial management enables it to stay within the financial parameters set down within the rules i.e. it lives within it's financial means and doesn't have to rely on metaphorically finding a few million down the back of the sofa at the 11th hour to bail itself out. We all know that it was the EFL's cock up when drafting the new rules that left the inadvertent loophole that enabled clubs to sell their stadia. You previously referred to the number of clubs that voted for the new rules, but I wonder whether the majority realised this loophole existed when voting, as sale of stadia to a related third party was not allowed under the previous rules?

It's a bit like a couple living a lifestyle beyond their incomes,  but being secure in the knowledge that at the end of 3 years of financial reckless living they can "balance the books " by selling their home to one of their children to raise the money to pay off loans and credit cards. The problem is that they don't own the home anymore, so won't be able to do the same thing when they next get into financial difficulty.

The other factor is your statement that " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant". Fair value isn't determined by the amount the club needed to avoid ffp penalties, it is based on proper valuation principles,. This point has been debated on here in relation to Derby's sale of Pride Park. The crucial factor is that there is no established and active market in football stadium sales so no comparative evidence of values so it gives a lot of leeway, even if club's appoint professionally qualified and independent valuers. 

That you only just scraped in by hitting form late in the season thanks to Grealish's return from injury, misses the point completely. Ffp  runs over a rolling 3 year cycle and even if the first 2 years were under different ownership, if the club operated outside the ffp limits over those 3 years it gained an advantage over every other club that had managed it's finances in order to comply. Notwithstanding the problems of shifting players out of the club, lets not forget that Villa had 3 years notice of the ffp deadline last March and during those 3 years had the benefit   ( and advantage) of parachute payments to make the transition less painful. That Xia chose to use parachute payments as a  war chest to boost Villa's promotion chances, is the reason for the problems that followed. Had promotion been achieved within the first 2 years, as was expected, all the financial problems would have been resolved in an instance. It wasn't and predicated all that followed , including the sale of VP where " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant"

Again, QED.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

....but this is the core of the problem.

The whole ethos of ffp is that a club's day to day financial management enables it to stay within the financial parameters set down within the rules i.e. it lives within it's financial means and doesn't have to rely on metaphorically finding a few million down the back of the sofa at the 11th hour to bail itself out. We all know that it was the EFL's cock up when drafting the new rules that left the inadvertent loophole that enabled clubs to sell their stadia. You previously referred to the number of clubs that voted for the new rules, but I wonder whether the majority realised this loophole existed when voting, as sale of stadia to a related third party was not allowed under the previous rules?

It's a bit like a couple living a lifestyle beyond their incomes,  but being secure in the knowledge that at the end of 3 years of financial reckless living they can "balance the books " by selling their home to one of their children to raise the money to pay off loans and credit cards. The problem is that they don't own the home anymore, so won't be able to do the same thing when they next get into financial difficulty.

The other factor is your statement that " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant". Fair value isn't determined by the amount the club needed to avoid ffp penalties, it is based on proper valuation principles,. This point has been debated on here in relation to Derby's sale of Pride Park. The crucial factor is that there is no established and active market in football stadium sales so no comparative evidence of values so it gives a lot of leeway, even if club's appoint professionally qualified and independent valuers. 

That you only just scraped in by hitting form late in the season thanks to Grealish's return from injury, misses the point completely. Ffp  runs over a rolling 3 year cycle and even if the first 2 years were under different ownership, if the club operated outside the ffp limits over those 3 years it gained an advantage over every other club that had managed it's finances in order to comply. Notwithstanding the problems of shifting players out of the club, lets not forget that Villa had 3 years notice of the ffp deadline last March and during those 3 years had the benefit   ( and advantage) of parachute payments to make the transition less painful. That Xia chose to use parachute payments as a  war chest to boost Villa's promotion chances, is the reason for the problems that followed. Had promotion been achieved within the first 2 years, as was expected, all the financial problems would have been resolved in an instance. It wasn't and predicated all that followed , including the sale of VP where " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant"

Again, QED.

 

 

 

Quite so, @downendcity .

Can't respond to these posts in full but definitely agree that it was a) A cockup that most norticed and that some did and b) 3 years all with parachute payments and c) Valuations are very subjective! Football stadia are unique, specialised assets which have no active market and are as such very hard to value- hence DRC. Yet Villa Park at £56.7m doesn't feel exorbitant on some level- but indeed proper valuation principles, no established market- and who is to say that different valuation methods don't throw up drastically different results!

@Delta Will respond to your post in full later but what is/was Villa Park if not a Tangible Fixed Asset? I see no reference to it stated separately so it must have been Impaired to some extent...indeed the total Tangible Fixed Assets at the time of relegation were stated within the group as £41-42m, this maybe before Depreciation but how is the Depreciation treated in terms of this- both historic and post Impairment? This is why it needs significant investigation and validation or otherwise before approval.

Plus the spirit of the rules...this is stated within the regulations, as to whether to consider cases and whether there is an attempt to circumvent the regulations, this is or can be factored in- check rule 11.3.1 on the EFL website! Question is, whether this still holds under the new regs, it certainly should!

Lastly, NSWE Stadium Limited was hastily created in May 2019 or so it showed at CH. Actually, it was more complex- it was removed from the NSWE Group (formerly Recon Group) having been created in 2017 and stuck under the direct control of the owners. Rule 11.3.1 could well be applicable here as well!

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

I'd be surprised if there isn't a thorough investigation, put it that way...there surely are grounds! What's good for Derby and Sheffield Wednesday especially...these cases can be reopened!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more note- possibly interesting, possibly not?

I see that the Impairment in 2015/16 was included in subsequent years bundled in under Accumulated Depreciation, ie all classed as that- is that a standard treatment? Can potentially muddy the waters certainly I'd have thought!

@Coppello you surely have views on this, from an accounting POV- would be fascinating to hear them!

Could just as easily have contained a series of errors too, different owners, not accounting for issues correctly- not impossible, is it? Doesn't mean it wouldn't be classed as a breach still but owners may have believed their sale price was just and fair- 3 different owners, 4 if you include co-owners, all from different financial backgrounds, 3 of them with different accounting standards- Lerner and Edens, USA, Sawiris- Egypt, Xia- China.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downendcity said:

....but this is the core of the problem.

The whole ethos of ffp is that a club's day to day financial management enables it to stay within the financial parameters set down within the rules i.e. it lives within it's financial means and doesn't have to rely on metaphorically finding a few million down the back of the sofa at the 11th hour to bail itself out. We all know that it was the EFL's cock up when drafting the new rules that left the inadvertent loophole that enabled clubs to sell their stadia. You previously referred to the number of clubs that voted for the new rules, but I wonder whether the majority realised this loophole existed when voting, as sale of stadia to a related third party was not allowed under the previous rules?

It's a bit like a couple living a lifestyle beyond their incomes,  but being secure in the knowledge that at the end of 3 years of financial reckless living they can "balance the books " by selling their home to one of their children to raise the money to pay off loans and credit cards. The problem is that they don't own the home anymore, so won't be able to do the same thing when they next get into financial difficulty.

The other factor is your statement that " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant". Fair value isn't determined by the amount the club needed to avoid ffp penalties, it is based on proper valuation principles,. This point has been debated on here in relation to Derby's sale of Pride Park. The crucial factor is that there is no established and active market in football stadium sales so no comparative evidence of values so it gives a lot of leeway, even if club's appoint professionally qualified and independent valuers. 

That you only just scraped in by hitting form late in the season thanks to Grealish's return from injury, misses the point completely. Ffp  runs over a rolling 3 year cycle and even if the first 2 years were under different ownership, if the club operated outside the ffp limits over those 3 years it gained an advantage over every other club that had managed it's finances in order to comply. Notwithstanding the problems of shifting players out of the club, lets not forget that Villa had 3 years notice of the ffp deadline last March and during those 3 years had the benefit   ( and advantage) of parachute payments to make the transition less painful. That Xia chose to use parachute payments as a  war chest to boost Villa's promotion chances, is the reason for the problems that followed. Had promotion been achieved within the first 2 years, as was expected, all the financial problems would have been resolved in an instance. It wasn't and predicated all that followed , including the sale of VP where " the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant"

Again, QED.

 

 

 

Villa did not make up the rules - We simply adhered to them.  It is irrelevant if we "found a few million down the back of the sofa" if it was permitted.  We had the ability to lose £50 million lawfully and within the parameters of EFL regulations.  Our situation is nothing like a couple living beyond their means because our owners could afford the comparative drop in the ocean (to them) that was required to keep the club competitive. You yourselves appear to benefit from 3rd party stadium ownership.  I don't see the difference.

It was actually 1 year of reckless living, not 3.

I very much doubt that the majority of owners did not realise what they were agreeing to.

Regarding the stadium - It was owned by NSWE.  They can sell it to who they like for whatever they like.  The fact that it was probably sold for less than its market value is also irrelevant.  The only time the EFL can comment/intervene is if it was sold for more than its market value.

 

Mr P - VP was/is a tangible asset but its value would not depreciate greatly by change of circumstances of the club ie relegation.  It would still host football matches, still had the pub & leisure centre and also the ability to host other events like pop concerts, rugby matches etc, as I believe your stadium does.  There are also regular stadium tours.  Furthemore, the hospitality areas are used during the week for conferences, business seminars etc as well as being hired out for functions such as weddings.  None of that would change with relegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Delta said:

Villa did not make up the rules - We simply adhered to them.  It is irrelevant if we "found a few million down the back of the sofa" if it was permitted.  We had the ability to lose £50 million lawfully and within the parameters of EFL regulations.  Our situation is nothing like a couple living beyond their means because our owners could afford the comparative drop in the ocean (to them) that was required to keep the club competitive. You yourselves appear to benefit from 3rd party stadium ownership.  I don't see the difference.

It was actually 1 year of reckless living, not 3.

I very much doubt that the majority of owners did not realise what they were agreeing to.

Regarding the stadium - It was owned by NSWE.  They can sell it to who they like for whatever they like.  The fact that it was probably sold for less than its market value is also irrelevant.  The only time the EFL can comment/intervene is if it was sold for more than its market value.

 

Mr P - VP was/is a tangible asset but its value would not depreciate greatly by change of circumstances of the club ie relegation.  It would still host football matches, still had the pub & leisure centre and also the ability to host other events like pop concerts, rugby matches etc, as I believe your stadium does.  There are also regular stadium tours.  Furthemore, the hospitality areas are used during the week for conferences, business seminars etc as well as being hired out for functions such as weddings.  None of that would change with relegation.

In which case, what was the £44.8m Impairment all about in 2015/16? Of Tangible Fixed Assets...an Impairment means that a Fixed Asset is written down to its recoverable amount- Recoverable amount= the Greater of Value-in-use or Fair Value.

If the Impairment was not necessarily justified, then the profit on the transaction is open to question- and I agree, relegation does not have a tendency to slash assets in that manner- no other club that I can think of has done anything similar! Maybe a small Impairment of 1-2% but never anything like that.

The point is though that with an Impairment such as this, the asset should not be carried at a greater amount than its Recoverable Amount- it's all there in Accounting Standards and given that Tangible Assets in 2015/16 ie during the relegation season, were listed as being £41-42m in Total...£56.7m for one of them a few years later is...interesting?

May all be fine, but OTOH it is also possible that either the price needs looking at afresh, the valuation method- or the new Book Value to determine the new £56.7m-X=Profit. May all be fine but definitely needs thorough Investigation. That's all I'm saying...thorough investigation and stress testing.

They can sell it to who they like provided it's Fair value/market value- but has the correct valuation method been chosen? That's another issue to consider- could be part of the reason behind the EFL revision of Pride Park value...down from £81.1m to £50m I believe! Also 2 weeks or so before the end of the Reporting Period in terms of the removal of NSWE Stadium Limited from the group and putting them as the new controlling party- see the below line.

Also even if it's fine under Accounting terms, the FFP reg in question could still come into play- consideration of whether an attempt has been made to circumvent the objectives of FFP!

How come the PL seem not to have signed off the transaction yet if all okay? Do we know that EFL approval was sought and provided?

So many unknown factors in play here! Happy to go with Innocent until proven guilty...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delta said:

Firstly, apologies.  It was Lerner who paid £120 million for the club.  Xia got it for around£60 million (if I recall correctly) with, as you say, a clause if promotion was achieved within 3 years.

I don't think the PL loss had any impact whatsoever on the value of VP.  The club's value may have dropped but the stadium is a separate entity.

We could not have sold players without offers coming in and players being willing to move.  It is not that simple.  We were likely one of the highest payers in the Championship with most aging players on good contracts.  It's noteworthy that upon our promotion ;last year, something like 10 players left the club for nothing, either by way of mutual agreement or because their contracts had run down.  In the final days of Xia, every player was available for transfer but as I say, without bids, nothing could be done.  Apart from Grealish and Chester (who was linked to Stoke) nobody really had a resale value of note.  Furthermore, it would appear that the EFL did not instruct Villa to make any sales, as has been the case in other similar issues.

It was only once the club was sold that we were able to buy a couple of players and bring in loans.  This would have certainly been after obtaining the green light from the EFL to do so.  I know it makes good reading to claim that Villa were a law unto themselves, our fans are arrogant, Prince William had clout etc, etc but all that is rather silly.  The bottom line is that discussions would have taken place that summer and even at that point, the sale of VP would have been discussed and factored in.

I am confident that we are compliant because the owners would not have risked a points deduction and potential hefty fine by blithely carrying on in the transfer market unless cleared to do so by the EFL.  The sale of VP was a fair price when factoring in the other buildings/businesses that form part of the estate.  The ground is iconic with a wide array of modern hospitality areas.  I would imagine (and this is just me) that the sale figure was most likely determined by how much was needed to ensure the club was compliant.  During that summer, promotion looked a distant goal.  We only really scraped it, hitting form for the last 3 months of the season, thanks almost entirely to the return of Grealish after injury.

One of the things a couple of us have questioned is “Sean Harvey”.  By that I mean we wonder whether club owners have spoken to him about their plans, he’s said “yes, that’s fine”, but not formally agreed by the EFL.

There have been a few quotes from Villa, Derby, etc (interestingly all the clubs now being questioned officially, in Villa’s case the PL) saying the EFL agreed it, but never (to my understanding) being able to get the actual EFL to confirm in writing.  Hence our thinking that Sean said it was ok, but that he may have been operating out of his jurisdiction and therefore giving a bum steer.  If that’s the case, it’s probably a bigger mess.

Think on either side it’s all or nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...