Jump to content
IGNORED

Villa's finances and FFP


harvey54

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Delta said:

Nothing to do with giving it large - Just stating a fact.  Of course Villa are bigger than anything the Championship has ever seen.  Ever presents in the PL up to that point and numerous top 6 finishes.

I've just worked it out! With statements of fact like that you're definitely a Leeds United fan! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parachute payments = reward for failure?  That doesn't sit well with me at all.  I'm sure someone has the figures to hand, but could you conceivably finish 4th bottom in the PL and survive and receive less than one of the relegated clubs with parachute payments?  And thus in the Championship, have an unfair advantage through failure before the season even starts.

Poor old Delta seems to have confused 'obsession' for 'scrutiny' - which is to make sure that all clubs play by the same rules, not bending and interpreting the rules to satisfy their own end.

On the subject of 'bigger' clubs - are Blackburn and Leicester both bigger clubs than Vile having won the PL?  I guess it hangs on what your interpretation of 'big' is.

And I'm pretty sure last time I looked, both Kalas and Dasilva came from Chelsea, who if i'm not much mistaken are very much a PL club, not picking from the bigger Championship clubs as has been alluded to....more the bigger PL sides.

This thread does have the potential to be absolute comedy gold......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Think there are often (usually?) relegation clauses but this is a) Not universal and b) May not be in line with income (mostly TV) falls. Agree though- have to be universal as a starting point.

I do wonder what % wage falls can be acceptable though- PFA, agents etc etc- it's difficult. 90% + wage falls won't fly because that's what happens if No Parachute Payments, the differentials.

You could exclude them from FFP calculations, make them conditional on serious offloading of players, maybe coming in staged or % based on offloading, or ringfence them to pay existing wages as opposed to spend on new players- 3 possible solutions.

Or have players included in a total wage bill up to a given point eligible and not register certain high earners, putting the onus on the club to sell/loan them out. Because they would be still on the books but not be eligible in the League.

On a briefly Aston Villa- and possibly soon to be Stoke related note though, I think that if Parachute Payments received to the level they are- £90 million over 3 seasons, there's no excuse- no excuse for a club needing to sell their stadium paid for in loans or receivables, or needing to sell their ground at all in fact!! Not a dig at Aston Villa, but a general point.

Let's not even mention twice exceptional Operating Income.

 

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They would, but again no parachute payments...no player will accept 90% in wage fall on relegation.

Agents, PFA, modern game- is it feasible? Think 40-45% probably, perhaps 50% the upper limits.

Because that, and maybe more is the differential between the two divisions in TV money.

Their wages don’t go up 10-fold on promotion so shouldn’t need to go down 10-fold either.

If they double automatically on promotion, they should halve on relegation.  If you decide to renegotiate on promotion and not think about relegation then that’s your own fault.

The likes of Rodwell had a clause in his saying the relegation reduction was suspended for a year, in the hope they’d go straight back up!!  That’s fine, but you go in eyes wide open to not going up, or in Sunderland’s case, down again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

The thing is that you and some of the posters on your forum have been criticising @Mr Popodopolous for his "obsession" and complaining that we are upset with the stretching of FFP rules, without ever actually saying he is wrong in what he is saying. It seems the attitude is that "of course Villa spent loads of money, we are big club and can do what we like". The whole point of FFP is to try and create a level playing field and if you were at the other end of that attitude, you too would be asking why the rules only seem to apply to smaller clubs struggling to legimately compete with clubs with huge parachute payments. 
Villa are a small club in the grand scheme of things, but bigger than us, but they are currently being helped to maintain that status quo by flouting the rules that should be making things more equal.  

I'm not wanting to defend Delta, but there is a slight correction PSR. Ffp was not introduced to create a level playing field.

What it was introduced to do, was to prevent profligate owners spending beyond a club's means in an attempt to buy success, but risking  the club's future in so doing, as was the case with what subsequently happened to Pompey following their relegation from the prem.

The absolute irony with Delta, is that by his own admission this is exactly the scenario Villa had under Xia, as there appears to have been little attempt to comply with championship ffp financial limits as he spent the first 2 seasons back in the championship funding the club in it's attempts to secure a quick return to the prem. . I think I am correct in saying that Villa effectively borrowed against their third year parachute payments in year 2 following relegation, so hardly the actions of a financial responsible club in the context of ffp. To the degree that in the summer of 2018 they were close to HMRC issuing a winding up order due to unpaid tax.

Despite this, Delta almost seems to take delight in laughing up his sleeve because we can't enjoy the benefit of selling Ashton Gate, as Villa did with Villa Park, as though it's some type of clever and slightly shady deal that Del Boy would pull off!

The only element of level playing field attached to ffp is the expectation was that all clubs would adhere to and work within the ffp rules. Unfortunately now know that the EFL's own cock up meant that clubs like Villa, Derby and Wednesday did not break the rules by selling their stadium. However, while that may be the case, we all know that the only reason they did so was because they had failed to properly address their financial affairs during the 3 year cycle, ( as pretty well every other club had had to do)  and the stadium sales were their last resort option. Because of this there are still questions in particular about valuations ( that all seem conveniently at the level that just about covered the ffp position) timing of transactions and accounting methodology.

As Ive commented before "O what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive".

When the final reckoning is completed I am pretty certain all will be found to be in order, because the EFL don't seem as clever as the clubs when dealing with financial matters. That they will be financial stronger when they are relegated is a given, and that they will represent one of the strongest teams in the championship next season as almost a certainty. That some of their fans will remind us that they are far bigger than the rest of the division, shouldn't be there and deserve their rightful place back in the prem is guaranteed.

Only confirming that cheats do prosper. :( 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Their wages don’t go up 10-fold on promotion so shouldn’t need to go down 10-fold either.

If they double automatically on promotion, they should halve on relegation.  If you decide to renegotiate on promotion and not think about relegation then that’s your own fault.

The likes of Rodwell had a clause in his saying the relegation reduction was suspended for a year, in the hope they’d go straight back up!!  That’s fine, but you go in eyes wide open to not going up, or in Sunderland’s case, down again!

Tbh, that 90% figure was just a rough throwing out of the difference % wise between the 2 divisions- you're right, those sums by me are not so relevant.

50% seems fair yet seems the upper limit that Ican realistically see happening- still think 40-45% but certainly 50%. 

One thing that's for sure, whether pro or anti parachute payments, IMO anyway- at least they should not be used to purchase new players, fund new loans or even avoid relegation clauses, should be conditional- going on a spending spree post relegation with them is not what they were intended for I am sure, think may well be a necessary evil but that they need significant reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very strange interpretation...very strange.

Your accounts clearly contain and have contained a number of curious items. Not saying illegit, but unique among clubs.

Offsetting of loans is a grey area under FFP regs.

The structure of it is interesting, in your NSWE Stadium Ltd accounts released this week.

Note 7- seems to split the Loans Payable into two categories, sections.

Notes 5, plus 7-9 in fact break down the whole thing.

HS2- Once again no other club has had the misfortune, but what I do know is that 'Exceptional Operating Income' means non-recurring- it appears that HS2 related income has been recurring.

It is known that the EFL did nto enforce FFP regs correctly- see Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, fine a year ago and now under charge- so it's hardly a conspiracy theory.

Prince William is flippant remarks, driven by anger at a) Your actions but b) The sheer sense of entitlement that sections of your fanbase and club seem to carry.  Regardless of claims of undue influence or otherwise, the fact that Cameron, Mervyn King and Prince William all support Aston Villa is quite interesting. Sure there was someone else as well?

Hollis- well given delays in compensation that are widely reported with HS2 and trouble gaining it, you've got to wonder why or how it was carried out in such a timely manner.

Shell- or former shell- company obtains ownership of stadium, paid for in the form of other loans payable to Aston Villa Limited.

Nigel Kennedy - confirms they are on the fiddle.

 

Boom, boom!

 

:) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BanburyRed said:

Poor old Delta seems to have confused 'obsession' for 'scrutiny' - which is to make sure that all clubs play by the same rules, not bending and interpreting the rules to satisfy their own end.

This, 100% this.

Since nobody can point to the exact regs, be they accounting, or EFL FFP that actually allow this transaction, then I wonder- scrutiny is what it is, and rightly so. Without scrutiny and significant scrutiny to analyse compliance, you may as well not have the rules!

I still struggle on some levels with a shell company- NSWE Stadium Limited was one initially- paying in the form of loans Aston Villa in exchange for their ground.

Offsetting asset value or price vs loans- past or present- has to be questionable under the regs surely.

Aston Villa Limited is the notional creditor.

NSWE Stadium Limited the notional debtor.

AVL has loans receivable from NSWE Stadium Limited to the tune of £56.7m (AVL- same goes for NSWE UK and NSWE Sports I assume, consolidation of accounts etc). That £56.7m was the sale price.

Loans is a key word for me here...loans.

In other words, NSWE Stadium Ltd gains the ground, in exchange for an offsetting of £56.7m loans/debt that Aston Villa/NSWE UK owe.

This is a starting point anyway.

Equity or loans? For FFP this matters! Because there are equity limits for FFP purposes...which are distinct from Cash losses which can allow unlimited equity but only a set amount of that counts towards FFP.  £8m per year I believe, the rest is all great for balance sheet but excluded from FFP.

Quote

APPENDIX F - Contributions from Equity Participants / Related Party(ies)

1 Introduction

1.1 This Appendix sets out further details as to what will (or will not) be regarded as a Contribution from an Equity Participant and / or Related Party.

2 Contributions

2.1 Contributions from Equity Participants are to be classified in accordance with FRS 25 or equivalent International Accounting Standard. The classification of a financial instrument between liabilities and equity is based on the substance of the contractual arrangement. (FRS 25 Para 15).

2.2 Contributions from a Related Party include:

2.2.1 capital contributions being a contribution by a Related Party that is an unconditional gift made to the Championship Club by a Related Party which increases the Championship Club’s equity without any obligation for repayment or to do anything in consideration for receiving them. This is an increase in equity and typically, such amounts are recorded in a separate reserve, often known as the ‘capital reserve’. For example, a permanent and unconditional waiver of inter-company or Related Party debt must be treated as a capital contribution, as it results in an increase in equity; and / or

2.2.2 the difference between the actual income / expenditure in a Reporting Period and the fair value of the transaction(s) in a Reporting Period (as determined in accordance with Appendix A) actually received / saved during the Reporting Period.

2.3 The following types of transaction are not Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies):

2.3.1 positive movement in net assets / liabilities arising from a revaluation;

2.3.2 creation, or increase in the balance, of other reserves where there is no contribution from equity participants;

2.3.3 a transaction whereby the Championship Club has a liability in that the entity has a present obligation to act or perform in a certain way;

2.3.4 contributions from owners in respect of instruments classified as liabilities; and

2.3.5 the write off of any historical interest accrued on debts due to or from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) or members of the Group of the Championship Club.

2.4 The onus is on the Championship Club to demonstrate the substance of the transaction, which must have been completed in all respects and without any condition attached. An intention or commitment from owners to make a contribution is not sufficient for such a contribution to be taken into consideration.

2.5 For the avoidance of doubt to the extent that Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) made after the end of the Reporting Period but prior to 1 December immediately following the end of that Reporting Period are utilised in accordance with Rule 4.5 in respect of the earlier Reporting Period they cannot also be utilised again during the subsequent Reporting Period notwithstanding the fact that the relevant transaction was completed during that subsequent Reporting Period.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Delta said:

You are Bristol City - You will never be in a position to look down your nose at us.

There's another fact for you.

Why don't you all whip yourselves up into a frenzy over Brentford or Luton or some other tin pot club at your level?  Do you not understand the bemusement of Villa fans that you obsess over us?

Think you’ll find it’s the other way around sunshine. You’re on our forum ? constantly banging on about Johnson saying something he never actually said ?

oh and you do realise every fan of every club laugh their bollocks off at you because you constantly sing a song about a trophy you won nearly FORTY years ago 

??????????

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Think you’ll find it’s the other way around sunshine. You’re on our forum ? constantly banging on about Johnson saying something he never actually said ?

oh and you do realise every fan of every club laugh their bollocks off at you because you constantly sing a song about a trophy you won nearly FORTY years ago 

??????????

 

Better to have won it 40 years ago than not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This, 100% this.

Since nobody can point to the exact regs, be they accounting, or EFL FFP that actually allow this transaction, then I wonder- scrutiny is what it is, and rightly so. Without scrutiny and significant scrutiny to analyse compliance, you may as well not have the rules!

I still struggle on some levels with a shell company- NSWE Stadium Limited was one initially- paying in the form of loans Aston Villa in exchange for their ground.

Offsetting asset value or price vs loans- past or present- has to be questionable under the regs surely.

Aston Villa Limited is the notional creditor.

NSWE Stadium Limited the notional debtor.

AVL has loans receivable from NSWE Stadium Limited to the tune of £56.7m (AVL- same goes for NSWE UK and NSWE Sports I assume, consolidation of accounts etc). That £56.7m was the sale price.

Loans is a key word for me here...loans.

In other words, NSWE Stadium Ltd gains the ground, in exchange for an offsetting of £56.7m loans/debt that Aston Villa/NSWE UK owe.

This is a starting point anyway.

Equity or loans? For FFP this matters! Because there are equity limits for FFP purposes...which are distinct from Cash losses which can allow unlimited equity but only a set amount of that counts towards FFP.  £8m per year I believe, the rest is all great for balance sheet but excluded from FFP.

Is anyone else struggling to get their head around the idea that a vendor would accept payment for their property in the form of a loan from the purchaser?

Ive coe across instances where a vendor grated a loan to the purchaser to facilitate a purchase, but never the other way around.

Also how does receiving money as proceeds of a loan square with that money representing the proceeds of sale. If I remortgage my house I don't declare the proceeds of that loan as income. I presume the acid test is if Villa declares the loan/sale proceeds as income for corporation tax purposes.

Is there a football club accountant in the house - @Coppello  can you throw any light on this ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This, 100% this.

Since nobody can point to the exact regs, be they accounting, or EFL FFP that actually allow this transaction, then I wonder- scrutiny is what it is, and rightly so. Without scrutiny and significant scrutiny to analyse compliance, you may as well not have the rules!

I still struggle on some levels with a shell company- NSWE Stadium Limited was one initially- paying in the form of loans Aston Villa in exchange for their ground.

Offsetting asset value or price vs loans- past or present- has to be questionable under the regs surely.

Aston Villa Limited is the notional creditor.

NSWE Stadium Limited the notional debtor.

AVL has loans receivable from NSWE Stadium Limited to the tune of £56.7m (AVL- same goes for NSWE UK and NSWE Sports I assume, consolidation of accounts etc). That £56.7m was the sale price.

Loans is a key word for me here...loans.

In other words, NSWE Stadium Ltd gains the ground, in exchange for an offsetting of £56.7m loans/debt that Aston Villa/NSWE UK owe.

This is a starting point anyway.

Equity or loans? For FFP this matters! Because there are equity limits for FFP purposes...which are distinct from Cash losses which can allow unlimited equity but only a set amount of that counts towards FFP.  £8m per year I believe, the rest is all great for balance sheet but excluded from FFP.

It's 100% not this.

By your own admission "Villa are the ones I want" (Despite not knowing anything about our finances or plans to comply with FFP)

You question every single transaction, in the faint hope that you may stumble across something.

What YOU have to understand is that even if we did not dot the i's or cross the t's (which isn't the case anyway), it would not mean that there is a case to answer.  Should the EFL bring a case, they expose themselves to a hefty costs order should (and when) an independent hearing finds no case to answer.

AVL can make payments however they wish (provided the creditor accepts that method and terms)  Likewise, NSWESL can accept payments in any way they wish.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Delta said:

It's 100% not this.

By your own admission "Villa are the ones I want" (Despite not knowing anything about our finances or plans to comply with FFP)

You question every single transaction, in the faint hope that you may stumble across something.

What YOU have to understand is that even if we did not dot the i's or cross the t's (which isn't the case anyway), it would not mean that there is a case to answer.  Should the EFL bring a case, they expose themselves to a hefty costs order should (and when) an independent hearing finds no case to answer.

AVL can make payments however they wish (provided the creditor accepts that method and terms)  Likewise, NSWESL can accept payments in any way they wish.  

When I say this I am agreeing with the poster about scrutiny vs obsession but anyway...

In a sense, yes, yes you are- you had £80-90m of Parachute Payments and for 2 years a higher loss limit. On that level, by that metric you are the worst of the culprits/alleged culprits. With 3 years to adjust and significant Parachute Payments in that time, there is little excuse to need to resort to such transactions IMO. Under the old regs they were excluded automatically and that would have been rather difficult...

Well what is it then? Remember FFP can exclude certain transactions or adjust for the purposes of the calculations.

Legal costs- we'll see how much they have to pay for Birmingham's case then. They seemed to lose that one.

Payment in form of loans receivable...given that the creditor and debtor are controlled by the same person/people I wonder.

Loans receivable into profit and loss...Balance sheet vs P&L Account? It's an interesting accounting treatment? It's a form of equity/money contribution and these are capped for FFP purposes to £8m per season. As in there is no limit in accounting terms, and in Cash loss terms, the equity/cash must be at least equal to cash losses but for FFP after a certain point these are excluded.

Cash losses vs FFP losses vs Accounting losses. These all are factors to consider, within the regs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham's case may of course be entirely different in that there may well be justification in bringing it.  This may negate costs or at least impact on the amount.  However, as they were ordered to pay costs in the previous matter, they have a strong argument to be awarded them this time around.  If the EFL ask for costs, they have to be prepared to pay them if their claim fails.

The loan came before the transaction.  It wasn't in lieu of the ground sale - What would you have expected? Another payment and then AVL paying that money straight back?

We are not concerned with old regs in the same way that we are not concerned with UEFA regs.  We are concerned only with the regs that were in force at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cash vs Accounting vs FFP losses are under the current regs.

I'd be surprised if that section about equity contributions has changed substantially tbh, can't see why it should have- isn't commensurate with the loss limits in FFP terms.

Loan before Ground Transaction? Makes sense- new or existing?

@Super Think Weimann pretty good value- has a decent return when combining goals and assists, runs around- think he can do a bit more, remember when he played Right midfield last season for a good chunk- not his best position, lot of self-sacrifice. Still ended up with IIRC 10 goals and 5 assists for the season! Good for us tactically too in a number of ways, think we had issues picking out his early runs though.

Baker was imperious in the first half of 2017/18 and yeah when fit not bad, problem is he has recurring injuries- decent when fit as you say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cash vs Accounting vs FFP losses are under the current regs.

I'd be surprised if that section about equity contributions has changed substantially tbh, can't see why it should have- isn't commensurate with the loss limits in FFP terms.

Loan before Ground Transaction? Makes sense- new or existing?

@Super Think Weimann pretty good value- has a decent return when combining goals and assists, runs around- think he can do a bit more, remember when he played Right midfield last season for a good chunk- not his best position, lot of self-sacrifice. Still ended up with IIRC 10 goals and 5 assists for the season! Good for us tactically too in a number of ways, think we had issues picking out his early runs though.

Baker was imperious in the first half of 2017/18 and yeah when fit not bad, problem is he has recurring injuries- decent when fit as you say!

Just a stab in the dark here but don't you think that Villa would have had top notch lawyers and accountants working on this?

We are not the worst offenders in any case as we have not over valued our stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cash vs Accounting vs FFP losses are under the current regs.

I'd be surprised if that section about equity contributions has changed substantially tbh, can't see why it should have- isn't commensurate with the loss limits in FFP terms.

Loan before Ground Transaction? Makes sense- new or existing?

@Super Think Weimann pretty good value- has a decent return when combining goals and assists, runs around- think he can do a bit more, remember when he played Right midfield last season for a good chunk- not his best position, lot of self-sacrifice. Still ended up with IIRC 10 goals and 5 assists for the season! Good for us tactically too in a number of ways, think we had issues picking out his early runs though.

Baker was imperious in the first half of 2017/18 and yeah when fit not bad, problem is he has recurring injuries- decent when fit as you say!

I think its 9 league goals and 3 assists so far this season as well.

He's been a brilliant signing for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They would, but again no parachute payments...no player will accept 90% in wage fall on relegation.

Agents, PFA, modern game- is it feasible? Think 40-45% probably, perhaps 50% the upper limits.

Because that, and maybe more is the differential between the two divisions in TV money.

In Aston Villa's case all NEW contracts signed under Tom Fox's leadership had wage drop clauses in them in case of relegation, the ones before this did not. To be fair Villa were a top 6 or top 10 club under Paul Faulkner.

I understand that all players now have a wage drop clause and contingencies are iin place if the worst happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delta said:

Just a stab in the dark here but don't you think that Villa would have had top notch lawyers and accountants working on this?

We are not the worst offenders in any case as we have not over valued our stadium.

IF football was like any standard business then yes, but the truth is the EFL regs- well it'd be interesting to see if they offer any guidance either way. By the same token though, don't you think that other club owners also have access to top notch lawyers, accountants, valuers and auditors- they might be able to help the EFL on this, if the clubs are sufficiently aggrieved. Clearly you would have had top notch lawyers and accountants working on it but Accounting can be about argument as well as watertight regs...for example who can say that the EFL's valuation of Pride Park should take precedence over the one Derby obtained? Don't we think the valuer who valued Pride Park at £81.1m might be somewhat put out by that and it's not just a minor adjustment like a bit of petty cash not accounted for correctly!

Of course, that would depend on whether other clubs and owners want to help the EFL, thereby this could help to close off potential loopholes in the future too. Still if clubs are demanding tighter enforcement and punishment, then they should help the EFL with this!

Could do a Saracens I suppose...don't think there was anything in the regulations about them being docked 35 pts but especially not the further 70 pts that followed, clubs wanting them banned from the division etc...but if a majority of clubs want something, 75% I believe the threshold in the Championship, it could be interesting to explore. Translated to football that is 21 points- 7 wins, 5 for a win in rugby once bonuses included, and then a further 42 points.

In 2014/15 there was a threat that QPR might not be let back into the League. Sadly QPR agreed to arbitration etc but had they refused outright to pay the fine, the EFL could've refused them re-entry, seeing them land up in the Conference- that would have been a great FFP deterrent for any club who have gone up and possibly played fast and loose- or more importantly for any club who is thinking of doing so.

Accounting Losses- What we see in the accounts. FFP losses- What we see after exclusions. Cash Losses- Same as the Accounting Losses except you exclude Cost of Player Amortisation, Profit on Player Disposal and add back in Net Cash Flow of Purchase/Sale of players.

Well on one level you are, the worst because you have a huge wedge of £90m in Parachute Payments to ease a transition and you still pull such a nonsense. I believe such transactions verbatim are a nonsense btw, not just your one. I'd argue you had the least excuse of any club who did it though, not that I praise any club who has done it of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Super said:

Baker is decent when fit and Weimann runs around a lot.

I did say to a Bristol City fan who asked me about him that Baker averages about 1 head injury a month. Always sticking it in where it hurts.
And yes Weimann does run around a lot and he is useless out wide. But he got one or two cracking goals for us, including when we beat Liverpool 3-1 at Anfield. His enthusiasm and work ethic stood out, I hope he improves for you guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I did say to a Bristol City fan who asked me about him that Baker averages about 1 head injury a month. Always sticking it in where it hurts.
And yes Weimann does run around a lot and he is useless out wide. But he got one or two cracking goals for us, including when we beat Liverpool 3-1 at Anfield. His enthusiasm and work ethic stood out, I hope he improves for you guys.

Be just as well that NB doesn't read this forum, otherwise he'd have a permanent head injury!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

Just a stab in the dark here but don't you think that Villa would have had top notch lawyers and accountants working on this?

We are not the worst offenders in any case as we have not over valued our stadium.

Ah, but you do know that the EFL have a crack team working on this.

 

1150911120_laurelhardy.jpg.bbe80f8f2d3280f8b22feb63ab164fcf.jpg

Their lawyer and accountant

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, as I thought.

RFU adjusted their regulations in order to put the extra deduction onto Saracens. Can be done...

Assume that the clubs agreed to it.

Worth reading this section from an article at the time- Daily Star may not jump off the page but Harvey's words and explanations on the QPR issue in 2014 are interesting and could be relevant in a few months time.

Quote

Chairman Tony Fernandes has vowed to fight against any sanction, but his side could be relegated three divisions if they fail to pay up.

That's because should QPR be relegated this season, the Football League could refuse them entry next season while they are in breach of the rules.

Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey said: "Theoretically, that is the position.

"But I would hope there would be resolution long before that option even had to be considered.

"The one thing for certain is that most clubs [in the Premier League] will become a Football League club again.

"Now QPR will of course be hoping it does not happen for some considerable number of seasons.

"But the chances are they will need to return to the Football League fold at some point in the future.

"And we are satisfied we still have the ability under our regulations to charge them for a breach of our rules whilst they were in membership.

"They were part of the Football League at the time they incurred the expenditure.

"The reason the matter is dealt with retrospectively is that a significant amount of detail is going to come out of their audited accounts and a club can only supply those a reasonable period of time after the year end."

That raises the prospect that Rangers could decide not to file the paperwork - which would send the case to an independent FA arbitrator.

Harvey, speaking at the SoccerEx conference in Manchester, said: "Football has a number of processes to try to keep its debates out of court and inside a tribunal system or arbitration system under the FA's guise.

"Ultimately, I believe the FA would have a part to play in terms of determining the outcome between a club and a league in which they are not currently playing."

With Projected Accounts this is meant to be an old issue now but I wonder.

I wonder if the Projected Accounts had the precise level of detail that the EFL would have signed off at that time, for Aston Villa. It would have shown profit on disposal but would it have shown the finer detail- ie loans Receivable, terms of payment, lack of immediate income in the Cash Flow Statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

Is anyone else struggling to get their head around the idea that a vendor would accept payment for their property in the form of a loan from the purchaser?

Ive coe across instances where a vendor grated a loan to the purchaser to facilitate a purchase, but never the other way around.

Also how does receiving money as proceeds of a loan square with that money representing the proceeds of sale. If I remortgage my house I don't declare the proceeds of that loan as income. I presume the acid test is if Villa declares the loan/sale proceeds as income for corporation tax purposes.

Is there a football club accountant in the house - @Coppello  can you throw any light on this ?

 

Sorry chaps, work has been a little busy, alongside buying a house so I've struggled to read these FFP threads. I'll read through it all over the coming days and let you know my thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I did say to a Bristol City fan who asked me about him that Baker averages about 1 head injury a month. Always sticking it in where it hurts.
And yes Weimann does run around a lot and he is useless out wide. But he got one or two cracking goals for us, including when we beat Liverpool 3-1 at Anfield. His enthusiasm and work ethic stood out, I hope he improves for you guys.

You Sir, are a Gentleman. Wish it was like the old days when players and fans knew their place. I remember seeing Dennis Mortimer turn out for Redditch  in the eighties. No fuss or sense of entitlement (I lived near Cov at the time). Better days . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Coppello said:

Sorry chaps, work has been a little busy, alongside buying a house so I've struggled to read these FFP threads. I'll read through it all over the coming days and let you know my thoughts. 

Look forward to your views.

Just don't mention that "Villa are the ones you really want!"  :) 

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...