Delta

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Again if you read, I gave the rationale.

Why so defensive?

Why so worried?

And in contrast....why so confident that you are fully compliant?  Do you go on a charm offensive with all these too?

Thats all we are asking.

When you come up with bollocks like you should be entitled to replace players like for like (and how unfair it would be to have to play “youngsters”) you sound like one of your fellow “entitled” fans.

 

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?

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There are some certain concepts that you are perhaps failing to grasp in this debate, I agree with Dave.

When facts change, our minds might- but those accounts will enable fresh analysis.

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.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@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.

"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. 

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Did you?

I have tried to stay away from this one but keep getting drawn back in- you haven't been charged but it still appears to be a live issue.

That's all that we can say about it but just because you haven't been charged yet, doesn't mean there are not significant question marks. I can't be bothered to list them again.

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

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This

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

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That was taxation and cash flow related, not FFP. Two very different things.

Didn't seem like it was well planned in advance to me, though only the EFL and your board/Purslow will know this. Is it even a fair price- has it taken into account impairment, Depreciation, adjustments therein? It's all up for debate!

Your loanees would've cost good  wages- loans generally are not free!! You are also not taking into account falling a) Parachute payments as they do fall quite sharply in Year 3, as Stoke will soon find out and b) The fact that your profits are reduced or were reduced from player sales. 

With the ground sale, you just about passed FFP, maybe by a few million. Without it though...some sort of adjustment to the price through an EFL commissioned valuation would change matters significantly.

Talking of valuation, these accounts when released will be very interesting, will be instructive.

Check the accounts...check the allowable losses.  You mention £12m, this is NOT the same as profit on disposal. Profit on Disposal is Fee Received Minus Remaining Book Value! Never mind the gross fees, what was the Profit on Disposal! Then again remaining amortisation for the year also falls off the cost when a player sold, which is an advantage of loanees.

I'll try and steer clear of Aston Villa related FFP stuff for 2 weeks or so, until your accounts for last season are out.

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).

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

And @downendcity (in response to @delta), it’s just as cut throat in real business, where a business might try to buy another business on the cheap because it knew of profit warnings or cashflow issues, or try to do a deal on purchasing  some products.

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.

Quote

Your expenditure last season while right on the cusp was hardly that of a club taking it seriously! You gained a sporting advantage by not seeming to be so bothered, and as such a sporting sanction should follow according to the loss limit vs points ratio.

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.

Quote

Talking of Aston Villa specifically for a moment, how do we know the Villa Park sale and leaseback was in those Projected Accounts? I'm not wholly convinced that it would've been.

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.

14 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Perhaps that's because selling players is a part of the long term sustainability strategy/plan the owner put in place in order to ensure the club worked within the new ffp limits and rules, part of which is accepting that selling our best players will potentially impact on our performance on the pitch, so part of that same strategy is player development and recruitment.

 

 

 

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.

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If I was a club battling the drop I would consider keeping key assets in January to be a competitive advantage- gained through overspending.

In terms of unreasonable deadlines, are you factoring in Projected Accounts? This is often missed in mainstream FFP analysis but the P&S regulations have Projected Accounts submitted by clubs in March of the existing season. Technically he wasn't sold by March so clearly no profit shown in that respect. The idea behind Projected Accounts is that it goes T  (Club submitted of Projected Accounts for the existing season), T-1 and T-2, the latter two being the actual figures.

if the aggregate total of these three after FFP allowances exceeds £39m or for relegated sides the PL adjusted limit, then a club has failed FFP! In theory, it should be easy therefore to dock points in the existing season based on the limit- the club would've submitted the figures so it'd be their own fault. T=Projected figures as submitted by the clubs for the current season so say 2019/20 for now, T-1=Real Accounts for 2018/19 and T-2=Real Accounts for 2017/18. Add it all, subtract for FFP ie academy expenditure etc and test against the loss limit relevant to the club- if all fine, go, if not then it's an Independent Disciplinary Commission- ideally before the end of the current season! If further info required, then the EFL has the right to request this from the club- say a profit on transfers projected or forecast, or a large exceptional item. 

These rules are actually very watertight in some ways, the question is how well they have been enforced!

We weren't in breach of FFP so it is a bit moot.

Brentford- us, Norwich, Leeds?

Besides you reinvested a certain amount of that, but net spend is in itself a misleading metric- amortisation, Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations etc- these are all quite important. Net Cash Flow with respect to Player Transfers is useful, but more about the FFP Cash Losses, FFP isn't necessarily about Cash Flow anyway. It's complex.

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)

10 hours ago, downendcity said:

Fair to whom though?

Surely it has to be primarily fair to all the other championship clubs who, knowing the new ffp rules ( as did every other club ahead of the 3 year assessment period),  took whatever steps were necessary to bring their finances in line, even if it meant selling their best players at the cost of competitive advantage.

 

 

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):

Quote

......that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess.

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.