Jump to content
IGNORED

Aston Villa in serious trouble (Merged)


42104RED

Recommended Posts

On 09/07/2018 at 17:32, Tomarse said:

Steve Bruce seems to have a reputation lately of being a crisis hit clubs - Birmingham, Hull and now Villa.  Is it time to wonder if he causes part of the problem..? 

No

On 09/07/2018 at 17:39, Leveller said:

No, but perhaps he’s too keen to take the money without any due diligence on the clubs, or ignores the risks with dodgy owners.

Ignoring the risk for sure but nothing more.

On 09/07/2018 at 18:09, Tomarse said:

He's starting to get Redlknapp esk at it thou! 

Don't believe all you read here or in the tabloids Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, phantom said:

Is this true? 

IMG_20180719_225241.jpg

Back in 2016 he would have been just the type of big name, experienced "marquee signing" many fans argue we should have signed and should now be signing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flicked through all the BBC news regions tonight. BBC West Midlands reported that failure to get promoted last season cost AVFC £160 million in missed revenue and they needed to make £40 million this season. Today two wealthy businessmen, one American, the other Egyptian, have got together and bought a 55% share of the club. BBC interviewed a member of their Supporters Trust who thinks it's a good thing as they will now be able to strengthen their team.

Being cynical; is he deluded? Will the club be used a loss leader for tax purposes by these businessmen or will all clubs be envious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a difficult one. 

Under FFP, you can only take a certain amount of losses over a 3 year period. Villa gambled, the parachute money is going, and they’re screwed without someone to pick up the slack.

However, I don’t think that the two new investors can just put in boatloads - if they don’t get up (and then be under PL governance - see QPR and Bmuff), then that should be a heavy points and money censure if they do that.

Sponsorship deals and other ‘engineering’ will have been signed so no way to cheat the system via that route.

I think it looks like money men taking a cheap punt, and also looking for scraps if admin happens. 

Also, not every billionaire wants to invest. Some are in it for land grab and gullible fans (Hi Wael...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 22A said:

I flicked through all the BBC news regions tonight. BBC West Midlands reported that failure to get promoted last season cost AVFC £160 million in missed revenue and they needed to make £40 million this season. Today two wealthy businessmen, one American, the other Egyptian, have got together and bought a 55% share of the club. BBC interviewed a member of their Supporters Trust who thinks it's a good thing as they will now be able to strengthen their team.

Being cynical; is he deluded? Will the club be used a loss leader for tax purposes by these businessmen or will all clubs be envious?

You can be sure they are not buying a share out of philanthropy.

Given FFP it may keep the wolf from the door but if they continue in their profligate ways they may end up back where they started.

Doubtless Bruce will demand they spend big and plenty of fans will do the same though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With FFP.

This wouldn't count towards it if enforced correctly.

It could clear debt and make Villa avoid the risk of administration or worse- but in terms of spending and wiping deficits in FFP context?

Well, now clubs are assessed in March with projected accounts that they must submit to the EFL and if there is a serious breach (they surely would be now, currently let alone if they spend).

These accounts would be the actual ones for 16/17 and 17/18 in addition to the club's projections.

The point of these projected accounts for the existing season is to apply a points deduction or a demotion from top 2 to playoffs etc if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎08‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 13:22, pongo88 said:

Good old Steve Lansdown realised that spending vast sums on transfer fees and salaries was a recipe for disaster. It’s taken a while to change things,  and it’s meant that some players have been sold, but we’re on the verge of having a steady Championship team and financial stability 

Yet still many fans clamour for chairmen to splash the cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s a difficult one. 

Under FFP, you can only take a certain amount of losses over a 3 year period. Villa gambled, the parachute money is going, and they’re screwed without someone to pick up the slack.

However, I don’t think that the two new investors can just put in boatloads - if they don’t get up (and then be under PL governance - see QPR and Bmuff), then that should be a heavy points and money censure if they do that.

Sponsorship deals and other ‘engineering’ will have been signed so no way to cheat the system via that route.

I think it looks like money men taking a cheap punt, and also looking for scraps if admin happens. 

Also, not every billionaire wants to invest. Some are in it for land grab and gullible fans (Hi Wael...)

Oh I dunno. Can’t think who it was but I heard of a club recently that pulled out of one shirt sponsorship because they’d found another one who’d pay more. Can’t for the life of me remember which club it was though? :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Silvio Dante

If sponsorships are by standard companies like a normal commercial transaction- agreed.

If they are by related or even third party companies then inflated sponsorships- as in inflated above fair market value and benchmarking will be deducted, disallowed from FFP calculations.

It is a lot trickier than, for instance, SL taking out a programme subscription for £10m which is the kind of thing that people said would happen when FFP was first mooted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

It is a lot trickier than, for instance, SL taking out a programme subscription for £10m which is the kind of thing that people said would happen when FFP was first mooted.

Exactly.

My scenario.was one of SL's companies he invests in just hypothetically.

One of said companies paid by SL sponsors Ashton Gate for 20 million per year- in exchange for naming rights.

Say for arguments sake, fair naming rights are 2 million per year. We lose 32 million in headine figures the season off the back of the inflated deal...if it's 32 million we're still probably just FFP compliant over 3 years. 

If 18 million of that is disallowed, discounted though, then it's a 50 million loss and well over FFP.

With submission of projected accounts, sanctions can be applied in-season. When I talk notional losses I include the allowable ones- e.g. stadium, academy, community to name 3 as having been disregarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably, even if a new owner has deep pockets and can ensure the wages and debts are paid, FFP still requires they start to balance the budget, necessitating deep cuts to the wage bill, and no transfers in that aren’t balanced by transfers out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Exactly.

My scenario.was one of SL's companies he invests in just hypothetically.

One of said companies paid by SL sponsors Ashton Gate for 20 million per year- in exchange for naming rights.

Say for arguments sake, fair naming rights are 2 million per year. We lose 32 million in headine figures the season off the back of the inflated deal...if it's 32 million we're still probably just FFP compliant over 3 years. 

If 18 million of that is disallowed, discounted though, then it's a 50 million loss and well over FFP.

With submission of projected accounts, sanctions can be applied in-season. When I talk notional losses I include the allowable ones- e.g. stadium, academy, community to name 3 as having been disregarded.

I'm not sure about the Football League, but am certain the prem have a specialist team that looks into sponsorship deals to decide whether they are fair value.  It would be hoped that should any club attempt any subterfuge in this way it would be picked up and the appropriate adjustments made as far as FFP calculations are concerned.

However, the cynic in me thinks that the big clubs will get away with this sort of thing much more than lesser clubs. For example, when Man U already have a £750m 10 year shirt sponsorship deal , how difficult is it to determine that stadium naming rights sold to a company related to their owner for , let's say, £500m are fair value or trying to decide the ffp rules?

Whereas if If Bournemouth sold their naming rights for, say,  £300m to a Russian Company, that is a wholly owned subsidiary of their owner's, then  it would probably be clear cut.

The biggest clubs can afford the best financial and legal advice, so will probably be in the strongest position to get around whatever restrictive rules are imposed.

 

 

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...