Delta

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

To be fair, I'm not the one who claimed that Villa asked for £200m to be offset against the ground, I'm not the one who suggested that Birmingham should go to the CAS and I'm not the one who suggest that Villa claimed to the EFL that a pending sale of SJG would satisfy FFP. But hey - If you think it's me who is failing to grasp anything then good luck to you _ I'll be delighted to have some of whatever it is that you're smoking.

"failed to grasp"???????? That's ripe from the bloke who thinks the EFL are too scared to challenge us. All hail the saving grace though - Mr P has 2 Villa mates who he has time for. ?

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

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.

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?

My forum? SJG £80m minimum Neves Does anyone even want him?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. You yourself were urging Birmingham to go to arbitration via some sports body in the early days. Now you are claiming they are bang to rights (good job they didn't follow your earlier advice) and that arbitration is a non-starter. Your opinions are just that - You know no more and no less than the rest of us

We did - Which is why haven't been charged, contrary to the kangaroo court on here.

You're missing the point - Be it cash flow or not, one of the first things the new regime would have done would have been to speak with the EFL for guidance on how they may proceed. To suggest they would just blithely march in and do things without checking is ridiculous. Everyone knew the precarious position that Villa were in, not least the owners who would have carried out due diligence. Whilst the loanees would have had wages to cover, they were still needed given that the loanees from the previous season had left. Most Championship clubs seek at least 1 loanee as a cheaper option to buying. Something else you have not thought about is the severance package that Bruce would have received. Again, if the club were concerned about FFP then Bruce would certainly have remained at the helm. It would have been futile to sack Bruce and replace him, only to have a points deduction the following season (at that point it looked likely that we would remain in the Championship the following season).

But in real business, owners are allowed to invest in and support their assets. To me it seems ridiculous that someone is forbidden to do this just because some small clubs are owned by people who don't have the money to invest in their assets. As I've said before, whenever a club is for sale, it is always the hope of their fans that they be bought by some wealthy arab. I don't read many comments from fans hoping their club will be bought by a pauper who will run the club on a shoestring.

But with the benefit of the pending ground sale, we were far from "on the cusp" The situation is this: After the play off final defeat to Fulham, the Sh%t well & truly hit the fan - We were looking at selling all of our assets. Had teams come in with fair offers, players would have been sold. As it was, no sensible offers were received so the players remained. After the club was taken over, informal discussions took place with the EFL and the green light was given for us to enter the market again. We spent modestly, acquiring a GK & McGinn for under £5m. We also received circa £12m for loans that turned into permanents. Naturally, we sealed a couple of loan deals to replace the loans that we had, had the previous season. All this would have been done with the aproval of the EFL and with the knowledge that the ground sale would be taking place. We didn't stumble on the ground sale in the 11th hour. Whilst this all may have looked iffy from the outside, when the ground sale is factored in, everything was above board.

If it is then the matter is closed - If it isn't then there's a potential problem. I would hope that Purslow et all knew what they were doing. Davefevs: It has to be the case that a clean slate is given after a punishment for a 3 year breach. The alternative would be a club being punished twice. I accept that a condition of this would be the business plan and that any breach would be classed as an aggravated breach. However, the world and his wife were aware of this business plan so it subsequently enabled teams to take the piss by making derogatory offers. FFP should not exist to give other teams a sporting advantage over punished teams. Perhaps a solution moving forward would be to agree figures in advance - The alternative could be a scenario where (for example) we go in and say "Give us Adams for £1m or face a points deduction". Who wants that to exist within our game? Personally, I wish FFP was just binned. It was only brought in originally because English teams were dominating Europe. Now it is the top few teams in each country who are receiving the lions share of the wealth. Nothing has changed other than the way the wealth is distributed.

You have done very well with your player development & recruitment. Every player has his price and you had the luxury of naming yours for Kodjia, Reid, Webster, Bryan etc. My point is that Birmingham didn't - Or at least don't appear to have. Fire sales also give teams an unfair sporting advantage as well of course as giving the selling team an unfair disadvantage.

They were punished fairly & squarely for gaining a competitive edge - They were docked points so that they were dragged from mid table into the periphery of the relegation scrap. Any points deduction this season will be meaningless as they aren't going up and they aren't going down. (which probably makes it easy to implement a 3 point deduction). The February 1st deadline suggests that it was aimed specifically at the January transfer window and nothing else. Our total sales would probably be more than Brentford, Leeds & Norwich although I accept that often, a sold player would be replaced (as is normal)

I am the last person on this planet who would want to do Birmingham any favours. However, they do seem to be incurring the full wrath of the EFL. A deadline of Feb 1st is unreasonable IMO and is clearly indicating that players should be sold. Not only that but that they have the 1 month January window in order to do so. Bear in mind that at the time, Birmingham were anticipating a hefty points deduction (which they subsequently received) so a double whammy could have sent them down. By fair, I mean that the punishement should be fair (and proportionate). A points deduction or heavy fine would (imo) be too steep and the EFL have the ability to impose a range of various sanctions. In your case, you were never forced to sell players for less than the figure you wanted for them. Selling players at the cost of competitive advantage is something that Villa did during their 3 years in the Championship BTW. We probably bought more coffers in that way than anyone else in the division.

I'm not sure either way about their ground sale so can't really comment - I will just have to wait and see on that one. On the surface, it doesn't seem smooth and cans of worms have been opened, likewise Sheffield Wed. The rent they are paying for the stadium appears to be more than they are receiving from Coventry so this is certainly not undervalued. I take the stance that no sporting advantage was gained from the final decision in the Birmingham case (Paragraph 27): To enable a 3rd party (ie the EFL) to insist on player sales, there must be a clause/condition or regulation permitting the 3rd party to do so. In the absence of such, it's a pretty safe bet that it would be unlawful to do so. The Feb 1st deadline appears to be the way around it for the EFL (if indeed there is substance in that date being relevant). There certainly seems to be a witch hunt on here (to me anyway). I believe this is for a number of reasons. Villa & Derby cop for most of it (not coincidentally the 2 teams who were in direct competition with you) Sheff Wed & Birmingham (who were no threat to you) get off lighter. For most on this thread, Villa & Derby are already guilty without anyone knowing the facts. In Villa's case, there was the Kodjia purchase that undoubtedly ruffled feathers on here. Furthermore there is the "big club" factor and most football fans like to see a big club suffering in the lower leagues. All of these factors mean that Villa And to a lesser extent Derby will always be subject to a witch hunt on here - Even if found not to have breached FFP, I still expect the animosity to continue. Part of it is human nature.

It is certainly the case that the EFL cannot force a club to sell players. However, there is a possibility that Birmingham were given a date of 1st February in order to implement this business plan (something they agreed to) so if true, it amounts to the same thing and something that I would challenge. I'm not convinced that a regulation was breached by failing to adhere to the plan either so no sporting advantage was gained by rule breaking. If a sell on clause takes priority then this further strengthens Birmingham's argument as other than Adam's wages, they would not have put any sort of dent in the business plan. You cannot say that by keeping Adams that Birmingham had a sporting advantage - It is impossible to prove. There is no requirement to prove a sporting advantage in any case. Birmingham were punished adequately for their rule breaking - They were placed on a soft embargo (that admittedly they breached by signing 1 player), they had a 9 point deduction and had to pay substantial costs. It would be completely wrong to further punish them for refusing to sell a player for under market value in order to chalk of a few hundred thousand (in wages). This FFP has yo be fair and proportionate, not a witch hunt.

Apparently, the EFL can't legally force clubs to sell players. The problems stem from an agreement the club entered into (with the EFL) in 2018. This was at the end of the 3 year monitoring period (ending 2017/18). A business plan was agreed with the EFL in which the club committed to, ensuring that running costs would be cut and new income would be generated in order to steer the club back into line regarding P&S. Player sales was an option but it wasn't an exclusive option. (Realistically, other than sponsorship, it was the only viable option). However, the fact that no additional revenue had been generated at or around the end of January, coupled with the offer(s) on the table for Adams appears to have prompted the EFL to arrive at the assumption that Birmingham did not adhere to the agreement they entered into 5 months previously. Adams of course was eventually sold in the summer for £16m (I believe). The EFL have to be very careful here - If they are implementing P&S then surely clubs who are struggling ought to be encouraged and supported in obtaining fair prices for players. January is a traditionally hard window with clubs often paying over the odds for players. In the Adams case, the offer received was significantly under his eventual transfer fee. The 2 big questions for me are firstly, what time scale were Birmingham realistically expected to begin inroads? Secondly, were they justified in holding out for fair market value? Personally, I believe that having made adjustments within 12 months of committing to cut running costs (by selling potentially their 2 highest earners) for the best price should mean that there is no breach on this occasion.