Jump to content
IGNORED

Adam Webster - Update - Sold to Brighton


Red Army 75

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

If he is going to go let the bidding war commence. And then chooses Southampton.  :yes:

Especially if he travels via Villa and just as he’s about to sign, his Agent takes him to Soton (why Soton?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Especially if he travels via Villa and just as he’s about to sign, his Agent takes him to Soton (why Soton?).

I like this scenario but it still needs Steve Bruce in pursuit taking a service station stop for fried chicken...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

He said that didn’t happen...

it was a quarter pounder with cheese

 

Meal surely - and he went large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Any links?

Here you go it on the times - link I'll post it below as I think you might need a sub to see it. 

 

Aston Villa are facing a Premier League investigation after selling Villa Park for £56.7 million to comply with profit and sustainability rules.

The club’s accounts for the year ending May 31 2019 were signed off by the English Football League (EFL) as compliant with its profit and sustainability regulations last month, but they have yet to be authorised by the Premier League, which received Villa’s books last weekend after their promotion via the Sky Bet Championship play-offs in May.

The Premier League rules are loosely aligned with the EFL’s, which prevent clubs from recording losses of more than £39 million over a three-year period, but contain additional complications that could cause problems for Villa. The Premier League regulations include the stipulation that all deals involving their clubs must be negotiated at a fair market rate, and assessing the value of Villa Park is expected to be the focus of their investigation.

Villa have been losing money since being relegated from the Premier League three years ago, posting combined losses of £50.6 million for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons. Birmingham City were given a nine-point deduction by the EFL after incurring losses of nearly £48.8 million between 2015 and 2018, a figure that Villa appeared on course to exceed over the present three-year cycle. The accounts that were signed off by the EFL will not be made public until next spring.

The Times reported on May 17 that Villa were discussing selling Villa Park to ensure profit and sustainability compliance, and documents filed with the Land Registry show that four days later their ground was sold to NSWE Stadium Limited, a company controlled by their owners Nassef Sawiris and Wes Edens, who have leased it back to the club. While there is nothing in the EFL rules to prevent sale and lease-back, the Premier League could take a harder line if they deem Villa Park to have been overvalued and can deduct points. Villa insisted last night that they had complied with all regulations. The Premier League and EFL declined to comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I suppose The Blues will be rather miffed if, having been clobbered with a 9 point deduction and fine, they see their near neighbours wriggle out of a similar situation scot free. Makes you wonder why the EFL did nothing unless they signed off the accounts and a little later Villa, who waited for same, then sold the ground. Slimey grease balls. 

In the event City do sell Webster and to Villa I would be suggesting they ensure the bulk of the money is paid up front although I realise that is not the norm but it does ensure no delays to the instalments when, if, Villa do receive their just desserts from the Premier League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, havanatopia said:

So I suppose The Blues will be rather miffed if, having been clobbered with a 9 point deduction and fine, they see their near neighbours wriggle out of a similar situation scot free. Makes you wonder why the EFL did nothing unless they signed off the accounts and a little later Villa, who waited for same, then sold the ground. Slimey grease balls. 

In the event City do sell Webster and to Villa I would be suggesting they ensure the bulk of the money is paid up front although I realise that is not the norm but it does ensure no delays to the instalments when, if, Villa do receive their just desserts from the Premier League.

Suddenly they are not a big fish in a small pond, allowed to do whatever they want because they used to be good decades ago.

We've done then a favour once over the Baker payments. Now I wouldn't trust them with anything but cash up front, otherwise we may find that the cheque is forever in the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

So I suppose The Blues will be rather miffed if, having been clobbered with a 9 point deduction and fine, they see their near neighbours wriggle out of a similar situation scot free. Makes you wonder why the EFL did nothing unless they signed off the accounts and a little later Villa, who waited for same, then sold the ground. Slimey grease balls. 

In the event City do sell Webster and to Villa I would be suggesting they ensure the bulk of the money is paid up front although I realise that is not the norm but it does ensure no delays to the instalments when, if, Villa do receive their just desserts from the Premier League.

If he goes to Villa then city have to insist on the money upfront, Villa are a crackpot of a football club and are clearly still feeling the impact of overspending.

Webster would be wise to see how this investigation works out before making any move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Apparently there's going to be something in the papers about Villa being under investigation.

Hope that throws a spanner in the works.

I haven’t quite finished the article yet but I’m working on it ,

Also I have some stories with the following titles ;

 » Moving to Villa made my manhood drop off « 

« Villa : The career graveyard « 

«  Villa Park pitch linked to infertility « 

and «  Villa’s directors eat player’s babies «  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, havanatopia said:

The Blues will be rather miffed if, having been clobbered with a 9 point deduction and fine, they see their near neighbours wriggle out of a similar situation scot free. Makes you wonder why the EFL did nothing unless they signed off the accounts and a little later Villa, who waited for same, then sold the ground. Slimey grease balls. 

How did Villa break the rules, it has been made clear by the EFL that selling your ground is acceptable. It may be deemed unfair but that is not Debry's or Villa's concern. If EFL clubs do no want this to happen then they will need to change the rules to prohibit it.

 

7 hours ago, havanatopia said:

In the event City do sell Webster and to Villa I would be suggesting they ensure the bulk of the money is paid up front although I realise that is not the norm but it does ensure no delays to the instalments when, if, Villa do receive their just desserts from the Premier League

What 'just desserts', according the EFL Villa did not break any rules. The Times article is suggesting that the Premier League is investigating the valuation of Villa Park as opposed to the fact that Villa sold its ground. Considering Derby's ground was valued at 80m and Villa's 57m I am guessing that Villa will be able to quote precedent for stadium valuation plus the fact that it was independently valued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, daored said:

Villa are a crackpot of a football club and are clearly still feeling the impact of overspending.

Of course Villa feels the impact of overspending. We p1ssed away loads of money over the last 3 years. But that was with a 3 year max loss limit of 39m due to P&S coupled with very low revenue in the Championship. However, in the PL the revenue for year one is significantly higher and so too is the maximum loss allowed each year. Even in the worst case scenario and with relegation next May a further two years of parachute payments kicks in. Villa's owners have demonstrated that it is not the availability of cash that is the issue, it is the ability to spend cash within the constraints of P&S and FFP. Promotion in May has guaranteed Villa a minimum increase in revenue about 250m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Begley said:

How did Villa break the rules, it has been made clear by the EFL that selling your ground is acceptable. It may be deemed unfair but that is not Debry's or Villa's concern. If EFL clubs do no want this to happen then they will need to change the rules to prohibit it.

  

What 'just desserts', according the EFL Villa did not break any rules. The Times article is suggesting that the Premier League is investigating the valuation of Villa Park as opposed to the fact that Villa sold its ground. Considering Derby's ground was valued at 80m and Villa's 57m I am guessing that Villa will be able to quote precedent for stadium valuation plus the fact that it was independently valued. 

You'll be interested to read.

A Tweet by Kieran Maguire pointed to the old rules and indeed suggested that said same old rules wouldn't have permitted this transaction.

The deletion of that reg was made in error so it is claimed, so clearly it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Whether it can be dealt with at the EFL level is a different debate but remember this one thing- for all of Purslow's requests for a public statement by the EFL confirming you've passed- there has been none so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The deletion of that reg was made in error so it is claimed, so clearly it shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

A bit of a screw up by the EFL. Clearly clubs cannot be found at fault if they follow the published rules. Derby and Villa may have been in a lot of trouble if the rule had have been in place.

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

for all of Purslow's requests for a public statement by the EFL confirming you've passed- there has been none so far.

I can understand the EFL not making a statement on Villa's compliance, I am not sure why they would. Equally they have not made any statements to say that Villa has broken P&S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Begley said:

A bit of a screw up by the EFL. Clearly clubs cannot be found at fault if they follow the published rules. Derby and Villa may have been in a lot of trouble if the rule had have been in place.

 I can understand the EFL not making a statement on Villa's compliance, I am not sure why they would. Equally they have not made any statements to say that Villa has broken P&S

They're an atrocious organisation tbh- if they deleted such a clause in error it's really the final straw IMO.

One of the big problems- and I'm far from alone in this- with the EFL, is their lack of transparency.

I understand why both parties- EFL and club alike would want some kind of er embargo on announcements of an embargo or more, but they often make a mess of things. Why not some sort of warning light system- Green- compliant, Amber- Steady as you go, Red- Big warning, possible breach on their website? Updated every 3-6 months- without giving away the finer details of embargo, it'd be transparency without necessarily compromising commercial confidentiality etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They're an atrocious organisation tbh- if they deleted such a clause in error it's really the final straw IMO.

One of the big problems- and I'm far from alone in this- with the EFL, is their lack of transparency.

I understand why both parties- EFL and club alike would want some kind of er embargo on announcements of an embargo or more, but they often make a mess of things. Why not some sort of warning light system- Green- compliant, Amber- Steady as you go, Red- Big warning, possible breach on their website? Updated every 3-6 months- without giving away the finer details of embargo, it'd be transparency without necessarily compromising commercial confidentiality etc.

Completely agree. The EFL has proven to be a disaster at managing P&S. The full issue with the Blues was a mess. It dragged on for ages and left Blues in a horrible position not knowing how many points they needed to avoid relegation or if they were actually competing for top 6. There should be very clear and published timelines for announcements and when penalties are to be applied and I don't believe they should be mid season. There should also be a ruling that if a club is found to breach P&S that they are not permitted to be promoted that season, that just encourages clubs to roll the dice. 

I like the over arching principle of P&S and FFP insofar as it is trying to protect clubs from administration but it is clearly not working. Bolton have naff all cash and are feeling the pain and will be doing well to survive. Villa has wealthy owners and has a mechanism (compliant to EFL rules) which enables them to get promoted. Blues are in the middle, not a rich club but a good club with strong support. They have an awful owner and end up in the mess they are in getting points deducted and having to sell their best players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selling grounds are fine but I think it does need regulating and conditions put in place.

A good start would be the ground cannot be sold until the EFL has appointed someone to value the ground to determine its market value.

Or instead, the club must provide details of the valuation to the EFL (ie who valued it and how they came to that valuation).

This would ensure its only sold at a fair market rate and cannot be abused by considerably overvaluing the ground.

Perhaps only a certain percentage of a ground sale can be used to go towards FFP? Maybe make an exception for administration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bristol is red said:

Selling grounds are fine but I think it does need regulating and conditions put in place.

A good start would be the ground cannot be sold until the EFL has appointed someone to value the ground to determine its market value.

Or instead, the club must provide details of the valuation to the EFL (ie who valued it and how they came to that valuation).

This would ensure its only sold at a fair market rate and cannot be abused by considerably overvaluing the ground.

Perhaps only a certain percentage of a ground sale can be used to go towards FFP? Maybe make an exception for administration.

 

As much as this seems grossly unfair , you have to admire the ingenuity of Morris and company when at one fell stroke they have got their respective clubs out of the brown stuff. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

As much as this seems grossly unfair , you have to admire the ingenuity of Morris and company when at one fell stroke they have got their respective clubs out of the brown stuff. 

 

It's ingenious and shows significant chutzpah. I was shocked it was even permitted in the first place, I think a collective reaction from quite a few may have been- surely- surely- they wouldn't allow that!

Given the regs, valuation challenging and possible deductions from the transaction seems the most likely. Derby in the most tricky place in that respect, likely followed by Aston Villa. 32.5%- or more likely range wise 25-35% profit for Reading is a certain benchmark...and you have to benchmark with these things, especially for a related party transaction.

Now if it's a truly third party and verifiably so, then it's a lot harder to take on- and maybe should be accepted, or indeed sold to help finance a new ground then...but this is totally different.

Full Market rent should be a given too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Begley said:

Of course Villa feels the impact of overspending. We p1ssed away loads of money over the last 3 years. But that was with a 3 year max loss limit of 39m due to P&S coupled with very low revenue in the Championship. However, in the PL the revenue for year one is significantly higher and so too is the maximum loss allowed each year. Even in the worst case scenario and with relegation next May a further two years of parachute payments kicks in. Villa's owners have demonstrated that it is not the availability of cash that is the issue, it is the ability to spend cash within the constraints of P&S and FFP. Promotion in May has guaranteed Villa a minimum increase in revenue about 250m. 

Which was why it was shit or bust for them last season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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