The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Delta]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

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

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

Initially, you were up in arms because Birmingham were dealt with before your (seemingly) obsession, AVFC, who YOU considered to be more deserving.  You stated that there was some sports body in which they could take their case to in arbitration.

[Delta]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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

Because it is getting silly - You want blood.  We stop spending big on players and start loaning them (as per every other Championship side) and that still isn't good enough - We should then start playing our youngsters, regardless of whether they can compete or not.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Delta said:

Initially, you were up in arms because Birmingham were dealt with before your (seemingly) obsession, AVFC, who YOU considered to be more deserving.  You stated that there was some sports body in which they could take their case to in arbitration.

Oh yeah, think I recall.

My tip to go to or to explore going to CAS was NOT necessarily to defer punishment but to try and get the accounts or Projected Accounts of other sides strongly rumoured to be in breach seen- see CAS AC Milan 2018, when they nearly got disclosure of Inter Milan, Man City and PSG- a point that if Birmingham are to be punished then everyone else must be too.

https://www.football-italia.net/124755/inter-balance-sheets-cas

I want no free passes for any side. None.

My legal angle was for Birmingham to get proper disclosure of all to punish all if necessary or properly try all if necessary at least, not to get anyone off the hook!

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Delta said:

Because it is getting silly - You want blood.  We stop spending big on players and start loaning them (as per every other Championship side) and that still isn't good enough - We should then start playing our youngsters, regardless of whether they can compete or not.

I want fair play.

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

As for playing youngsters.  Yes, why not.  They are pros.  We played 9 kids in 1982 to fulfil a fixture.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

Because it is getting silly - You want blood.  We stop spending big on players and start loaning them (as per every other Championship side) and that still isn't good enough - We should then start playing our youngsters, regardless of whether they can compete or not.

I'm not quite sure that's the consideration with FFP tbh.

Check your Operating Losses in 2017/18, use these as a starting point, work out Parachute Payments and the differences between them in 2017/18 and last year- Profit on Transfers. Granted wages will have fell but you made that £54m operating loss that year- despite £33m in Parachute Payments and £13m in Profit on Transactions etc.

Your Accumulated FFP losses to May 2018 in the Chamopipinship were about £24-25m after allowabvle costs.

Your allowable costs in the 2017/18 season were about £15m and about £10-11m in 2016/17.

Means you could lose in gross accounting terms £29-30m last season, in FFP terms about £29-30m. The Villa Park valuation should've been tested at the time by the EFL as soon as they got wind of it, and actually if it was done post March 2019 then there is an argument to say that it shouldn't have counted for FFP purposes. I have a feeling that- and not just with you- but in the last 2 seasons under Shaun Harevey, these Projected Accounts were not necessarily applied correctly in a fair few cases.

The funny thing is, £56.7m does seem reasonable but the question is, how are Impairment and the possible treatment of Depreciation factored in? You're not guilty until proven otherwise but a lot of things merit rigorous investigation!

@Davefevs Might have been @YorkshireAVFC but not seen him on Twitter for a while. His calculations and projections were not very different to mine, Kieran Maguire's or Swiss Ramble's btw.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Here are some calculations I made a little while ago too, if anyone interested.

Hopefully this will come out alright- and I haven't yet factored in a ground sale and leaseback.

Nor have I factored in Traore sell on clause. About £3.6m if reports to be believed. That loss is of course before the allowable FFP deductions but given this is on the basis of those being much the same, they wouldn't make any difference as such.

The Headline loss was inclusive of Parachute Payments, Profit on Transfers and HS2 or similar compensation- but before the allowable costs that you deduct.

it's possible that when including the ground sale that Aston Villa scraped it but certainly passed, but that any downward adjustment would see a fail- and the size of the adjustment would impact upon the size of the overspend.

I don't know why it's formatting like this- leaving half a post space blank! 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I want fair play.

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

As for playing youngsters.  Yes, why not.  They are pros.  We played 9 kids in 1982 to fulfil a fixture.

You are so wrong.

The EFL went after Birmingham because they were £9.7 million over the permitted threshold (of £39 million) over a 3 year monitoring period.  Currently, Villa have not breached P&S rules and that is why the EFL have not "gone after" us.

After admitting the breach of EFL rules, Birmingham were then placed on a soft embargo.  However, despite this, Birmingham still signed another player.  This was ultimately held not to be an aggravating factor, however, it was noted that Birmingham had not fully embraced the objectives of P&S rules.

Birmingham escaped punishment for breaching the soft embargo but were deducted 9 points for the initial breach of P&S rules.

So in a nutshell, Birmingham were not unlucky - They admitted the breach and were dealt with accordingly.  No such accusation has been put to Villa so there is no case to answer.  The EFL cannot act before accounts have been submitted so that is why they are always a year behind.

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Delta said:

You are so wrong.

The EFL went after Birmingham because they were £9.7 million over the permitted threshold (of £39 million) over a 3 year monitoring period.  Currently, Villa have not breached P&S rules and that is why the EFL have not "gone after" us.

After admitting the breach of EFL rules, Birmingham were then placed on a soft embargo.  However, despite this, Birmingham still signed another player.  This was ultimately held not to be an aggravating factor, however, it was noted that Birmingham had not fully embraced the objectives of P&S rules.

Birmingham escaped punishment for breaching the soft embargo but were deducted 9 points for the initial breach of P&S rules.

So in a nutshell, Birmingham were not unlucky - They admitted the breach and were dealt with accordingly.  No such accusation has been put to Villa so there is no case to answer.  The EFL cannot act before accounts have been submitted so that is why they are always a year behind.

Agreed ultimately but part of me wonders about how it pans out in the event of no soft embargo breach.

The EFL did want Pedersen included too but think they made an error at their end which meant it couldn't be included.

Was 7 for the loss, 3 for a deliberate breach and 1 given back for admitting it- or something?

Then what is Projected Accounts all about? 

• T=Existing season, Projected Accounts- and tbh by March 2019 clubs should have a fair idea of their profits- or at this level mostly, losses- for the season.
• T-1=Prior season real accounts.
• T-2= Season before that real accounts.

The onus is on the EFL to the maximum extent of their power, to get clubs to prove optimistic assertions on Player Profit sales or large exceptional items. This is part of Gibson's issue IMO.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Delta said:

You are so wrong.

The EFL went after Birmingham because they were £9.7 million over the permitted threshold (of £39 million) over a 3 year monitoring period.  Currently, Villa have not breached P&S rules and that is why the EFL have not "gone after" us.

After admitting the breach of EFL rules, Birmingham were then placed on a soft embargo.  However, despite this, Birmingham still signed another player.  This was ultimately held not to be an aggravating factor, however, it was noted that Birmingham had not fully embraced the objectives of P&S rules.

Birmingham escaped punishment for breaching the soft embargo but were deducted 9 points for the initial breach of P&S rules.

So in a nutshell, Birmingham were not unlucky - They admitted the breach and were dealt with accordingly.  No such accusation has been put to Villa so there is no case to answer.  The EFL cannot act before accounts have been submitted so that is why they are always a year behind.

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

[Delta]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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

I think you are being extremely naive, possibly influenced by the previous nonsense posted on this thread.

Why would the EFL bottle it? Because of Prince William? Because the PL want us back up there?

If Villa are found to have breached P&S rules, we will be brought to account just like any other club would. 

If we are deemed to have breached the rules, I will be prepared to take any sanction imposed.  However, if it transpires that we have legitimately worked within the constraints of FFP, albeit with the aid of a ground sale, then that should be the end of the matter and all these reprehensible references to cheats should stop immediately (not that they should ever have been posted in the absence of any evidence).

[Mr Popodopolous]

31 minutes ago, Delta said:

I think you are being extremely naive, possibly influenced by the previous nonsense posted on this thread.

Why would the EFL bottle it? Because of Prince William? Because the PL want us back up there?

If Villa are found to have breached P&S rules, we will be brought to account just like any other club would. 

If we are deemed to have breached the rules, I will be prepared to take any sanction imposed.  However, if it transpires that we have legitimately worked within the constraints of FFP, albeit with the aid of a ground sale, then that should be the end of the matter and all these reprehensible references to cheats should stop immediately (not that they should ever have been posted in the absence of any evidence).

There is the fair value test.

The Impairment and the depreciation- I think that is still an issue up for debate, personally.

Do I think there has been a definite and cast iron breach? No, in the cold light of day. How can I until the accounts are out? Do I think it needs to be explored to the max- absolutely.

It might be e.g. that the Sale Price was fair but the Impairment was questionable- profit reduced. Or the Impairment was incorrectly applied last May which means Fair Value decreased- profit reduced.

Or it could be that all is okay...I've been researching Impairment and Depreciation for Fixed Assets. Still pretty unclear...whether Recoverable Amount means eliminate Deprecation on sale or not, it seems a fairly movable feast.

I note that in both 2016/17 and 2017/18, the Impairment listed in the Fixed Assets for 2015/16 seems to be bundled together under Accumulated Depreciation. Worth a closer look by specialist accountants? Or it might be fine!

I'm unsure whether it should be Book Value or Net Book Value when it comes to Impairment of a Tangible Asset for a start.

IF it was restated to Fair Value or again to Fair Value in 2018 when you had the takeover, then that could impact upon the Profit on Disposal at the end of last season- an adjustment impacts upon FFP.

Derby and Sheffield Wednesday both sold their grounds to reach FFP compliance- but investigation meant that there was a case to answer in the end.

I think that there has been no charge tbh, because it's still a live issue but in a state of hiatus partly a) Due to the accounts not yet being out and b) Due to yourselves having been promoted.

There will still be no charge, if all is well- but it's basically in hiatus atm I think.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Delta said:

Initially, you were up in arms because Birmingham were dealt with before your (seemingly) obsession, AVFC, who YOU considered to be more deserving.  You stated that there was some sports body in which they could take their case to in arbitration.

If you check back through this thread I think you will find that there was equal scrutiny of Derby's and Sheffield Wednesday's situations in similar circumstances i.e. the sale of their stadia.

I would suggest the feelings of many City fans ( and probably those of other clubs that have taken the necessary, albeit tough steps, to comply with ffp) are that clubs that appear to have circumvented the financial rules should receive due punishment. Not because it's Derby or Villa, out of some sort of vindictive retribution,  but because they appear to have taken the p155 with every other club I'm the division. 

There is also a degree of anger and frustration with the EFL over their abject administration of ffp, and in particular the cock up in drafting the new rules that left the loophole regarding stadium sales. That Villa appear to have benefitted from this to the degree that you are now enjoying life ( and the financial benefits) in the premier league,  might explain fans' frustration a little.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by downendcity

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, Delta said:

I think you are being extremely naive, possibly influenced by the previous nonsense posted on this thread.

Why would the EFL bottle it? Because of Prince William? Because the PL want us back up there?

If Villa are found to have breached P&S rules, we will be brought to account just like any other club would. 

If we are deemed to have breached the rules, I will be prepared to take any sanction imposed.  However, if it transpires that we have legitimately worked within the constraints of FFP, albeit with the aid of a ground sale, then that should be the end of the matter and all these reprehensible references to cheats should stop immediately (not that they should ever have been posted in the absence of any evidence).

The problem is, if you have breached for the three year period, the horse has bolted.  Until you publish your accounts we don’t know.

You don’t seem to get that we are speculating and therefore discussing on a forum stuff that has been put out in the media.

If this thread is nonsense, why not scroll past it?

We’ve had some good debate on this thread with fans of other clubs, and we’ve had some who seem to be worried by it.  It’s a forum, it’s not a court.

 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t.

There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t.

There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?

3rd July 2018.

2018/19 accounts surely? Don't suppose it makes much difference in the end with the 3 year periods. Could've had you been promoted. 

Just a little confused as to why Sevco 5112 an Derby County Accounts show differentials in distribution of the profits on player sales. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

If you check back through this thread I think you will find that there was equal scrutiny of Derby's and Sheffield Wednesday's situations in similar circumstances i.e. the sale of their stadia.

I would suggest the feelings of many City fans ( and probably those of other clubs that have taken the necessary, albeit tough steps, to comply with ffp) are that clubs that appear to have circumvented the financial rules should receive due punishment. Not because it's Derby or Villa, out of some sort of vindictive retribution,  but because they appear to have taken the p155 with every other club I'm the division. 

There is also a degree of anger and frustration with the EFL over their abject administration of ffp, and in particular the cock up in drafting the new rules that left the loophole regarding stadium sales. That Villa appear to have benefitted from this to the degree that you are now enjoying life ( and the financial benefits) in the premier league,  might explain fans' frustration a little.

 

 

 

 

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.

[AnAstonVillafan]

On 14/02/2020 at 14:32, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cash flow and FFP are significantly different and though the debt was removed and the immediate issues cleared, I'm unsure how it impacts upon FFP. I don't know though, was there some special exemption for Aston Villa? The owners sorted the cashflow issue, the debt issue- the FFP problem is or was more complicated.

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

Yes, I forgot about compensation for Bruce and compensation to Brentford for Smith- that can add to the losses?

Your club should be worried or at least have pause for thought on return...just seem something interesting about Sheffield Wednesday! Remember clubs demanding punishment for Birmingham surely helped to escalate that...I know they were in breach but it seemed that them signing Pedersen irked many rival clubs- and I wonder how it would've panned out in those early days, if they had stuck to the soft embargo...

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11703/11933677/sheffield-wednesday-clubs-demand-points-deduction-over-sale-of-hillsborough-to-dejphon-chansiri

Clubs set the rules!! Fairly sure some of Leeds points deductions were voted for by clubs! They could quite easily vote on something about Aston Villa, especially if everyone else gets punished or at least referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.

What does that mean ? Don't sign any decent players ? Just give up as a club ? These seems to be resistance any time the club tries to improve or remain competitive. Or simply get some bodies in.

We do have to replace players. Its essential.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 15/02/2020 at 17:54, AnAstonVillafan said:

What does that mean ? Don't sign any decent players ? Just give up as a club ? These seems to be resistance any time the club tries to improve or remain competitive. Or simply get some bodies in.

We do have to replace players. Its essential.

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!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

On 15/02/2020 at 17:54, AnAstonVillafan said:

What does that mean ? Don't sign any decent players ? Just give up as a club ? These seems to be resistance any time the club tries to improve or remain competitive. Or simply get some bodies in.

We do have to replace players. Its essential.

I don't think Mr P is in a position to answer - He thought we were claiming £200m for VP, he thought we we claiming respite for a pending SJG sale, he thought Birmingham could go to the CAS.

He was wrong.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Delta said:

I don't think Mr P is in a position to answer - He thought we were claiming £200m for VP, he thought we we claiming respite for a pending SJG sale, he thought Birmingham could go to the CAS.

He was wrong.

Wow, your fanbase love to bury their heads in the sand- your forum on the issue of FFP is quite something it must be said! 

Newsflash, if Man City and AC Milan can get kicked out of European competition, you certainly are not too big to be looked at in the summer or perhaps even when you return to the EFL!

SJG? Him or Neves? Wonder who is better value.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Delta said:

I don't think Mr P is in a position to answer - He thought we were claiming £200m for VP, he thought we we claiming respite for a pending SJG sale, he thought Birmingham could go to the CAS.

He was wrong.

When I post on other club’s forums I show a bit of respect.  

[Delta]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wow, your fanbase love to bury their heads in the sand- your forum on FFP is quite something it must be said!

SJG? Him or Neves? Wonder who is better value.

My forum?

SJG £80m minimum

Neves Does anyone even want him?

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Delta said:

My forum?

SJG £80m minimum

Neves Does anyone even want him?

Villa forum, whatever- your fans forum.

Grealish or Neves at value price...well the transfer market is crazy but perhaps the latter has stalled a bit, £80m minimum but if it was a case that you needed to sell him before the end of your Reporting Period that may not be the case.

On your other points, I wanted Birmingham to explore the CAS to try and force production of financial statements to compare against- not to get off the hook but to try and get equitable punishment if necessary- like AC Milan did.

£200m Villa Park? Paper or Twitter talk, but tbh sure I saw some of your own fans online gloating about £200m or similar.

Actually, the £200m figure was sourced from one of your own fan pages!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

When I post on other club’s forums I show a bit of respect.  

Pity you don't show the same respect o other teams.

Am I supposed to read the ill informed disrespectful drivel and not respond?

I thought this was supposed to bean impartial thread on FFP?

Where have Villa claimed to have sold their ground for £200m?  Where have Villa claimed to have a Grealish sale as an answer to FFP?

Are we supposed to read this nonsense without the right of reply or do you want a constructive debate?

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Delta said:

Pity you don't show the same respect o other teams.

Am I supposed to read the ill informed disrespectful drivel and not respond?

I thought this was supposed to bean impartial thread on FFP?

Where have Villa claimed to have sold their ground for £200m?  Where have Villa claimed to have a Grealish sale as an answer to FFP?

Are we supposed to read this nonsense without the right of reply or do you want a constructive debate?

Some of that was speculation in earlier days based on a variery of sources. However largely the thread has evolved and is pretty factually based now- of course there are opinions as well.

£200m theory came from one of your own, ie astonvillanewsandviews, and that was never a claim that you had, more like what you could in their view get away with. Grealish was just paper talk but I significantly question either a) The Impairment b) The sale price or c) The profit. The 2018/19 accounts will be instructive and a good starting point!

Should also add, though you'll know this already of course- debt write offs are fine and fine for accounts and there could have been debt written off on takeover, but it doesn't count for FFP so always subtract that from the income/profit.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some of that was speculation in earlier days based on a variery of sources. However largely the thread has evolved and is pretty factually based now- of course there are opinions as well.

£200m theory came from one of your own, ie astonvillanewsandviews, and that was never a claim that you had, more like what you could in their view get away with. Grealish was just paper talk but I significantly question either a) The Impairment b) The sale price or c) The profit. The 2018/19 accounts will be instructive and a good starting point!

Let's face it.  We can't do right from wrong on here can we?

Fortunately, in the real world, we have operated within the EFL P&S rules.

I think the most telling post was the one which claimed that he didn't want us to win the play offs because we were 'Big Time Charlies'

Can you imagine the meltdown if a Villa fan had called you small time no marks or tin pot charlies etc?

You jump one very negative, despite it's source or validity.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Delta said:

Let's face it.  We can't do right from wrong on here can we?

Fortunately, in the real world, we have operated within the EFL P&S rules.

I think the most telling post was the one which claimed that he didn't want us to win the play offs because we were 'Big Time Charlies'

Can you imagine the meltdown if a Villa fan had called you small time no marks or tin pot charlies etc?

You jump one very negative, despite it's source or validity.

My personal preference at that time, before other stuff came out was for Derby to win- because they had sold players as well, ie Grant, Christie, Hughes, Hendrick, Ince, Vydra, Weimann in 3 seasons. Also no Parachute Payments. Now granted their Rooney signing and how it was done, for which reason he got some booing arguably on Wednesday, possibly Bielik and what we now all know about the ground being seemingly £30m overvalued and the Amortisation debate, this has muddied the water significantly!

Now this is a very interesting aspect. The rules are somewhat opaque. Derby believed they had operated within the EFL P&S rules but are now under investigation. Sheffield Wednesday believed they had operated within the EFL P&S rules and are now under investigation. There were differences for sure, but just because a club is passed in May say, then that doesn't mean that cases are not reopenable at a later date! QPR springs to mind, Man City just Friday even more relevant, AC Milan arguably- UEFA wanted to reopen PSG and may yet launch a fresh investigation- precedent says to me that they really should.

Is it perhaps possible that the EFL pass or fail on the strength the initial figures ie £39m Yes/No Pass/Fail, and then investigate the detail later? I don't think it's an ideal system and it really needs to be tightened if possible, but this might be how they operate it.

I will reserve judgement until those accounts are out then go from there, however we can all speculate based on 2017/18 numbers and falls in say Parachute Payments vs falls in wages e,g,. However Projected Losses, figures all in line with @YorkshireAVFC who is no longer on Twitter or I haven't seen on Twitter for a while, @KieranMaguire and @SwissRamble, these projected figures are all within a certain range.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My personal preference at that time, before other stuff came out was for Derby to win- because they had sold players as well, ie Grant, Christie, Hughes, Hendrick, Ince, Vydra, Weimann in 3 seasons. Also no Parachute Payments. Now granted their Rooney signing and how it was done, for which reason he got some booing arguably on Wednesday, possibly Bielik and what we now all know about the ground being seemingly £30m overvalued and the Amortisation debate, this has muddied the water significantly!

Now this is a very interesting aspect. The rules are somewhat opaque. Derby believed they had operated within the EFL P&S rules but are now under investigation. Sheffield Wednesday believed they had operated within the EFL P&S rules and are now under investigation. There were differences for sure, but just because a club is passed in May say, then that doesn't mean that cases are not reopenable at a later date! QPR springs to mind, Man City just Friday even more relevant, AC Milan arguably- UEFA wanted to reopen PSG and may yet launch a fresh investigation- precedent says to me that they really should.

I will reserve judgement until those accounts are out then go from there, however we can all speculate based on 2017/18 numbers and falls in say Parachute Payments vs falls in wages e,g,. However Projected Losses, figures all in line with @YorkshireAVFC who is no longer on Twitter or I haven't seen on Twitter for a while, @KieranMaguire and @SwissRamble, these projected figures are all within a certain range.

So all your claims of us being "odious" are based on Twitter speculation?

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Delta said:

So all your claims of us being "odious" are based on Twitter speculation?

In fairness to me, I've never really suggested the new owners or Xia for that matter are odious.

Purslow I don't like, granted- seems a slick and dislikeable individual let's say.

Mainly on social media, your fans seem terribly arrogant. I'm glad you made this post tbh, as I should add there are two Villa fans I know who I have a lot of time for. Maybe social media amplifies but a belief that the rules may have been circumnavigated when so many clubs not least my own have made major efforts and major sacrifices to comply, multipled by the sheer arrogance of quite a high % of social media Aston Villa fan output and especially on this issue, hardens my position too. Perhaps my position varies but I'm still convinced that there may well be a case to answer.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

@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.