Thierry Henry

[Drew Peacock]

34 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

Benny Henry?

More likely Benny Hill

[WhistleHappy]

7 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

More likely Benny Hill

Hill Billy

[EnderMB]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

This was Alan Sugar's argument for Spurs; the breaches had taken place under the previosu regime who had now left so why should the new owners be punished when they hadn't breached any rules?

I can see that it can work in that case if you buy the club without being aware of the previous dodgy dealings but if you buy a club being fully aware of that club's breach of FFP and level of debts then that will be reflected in the purchase price so the same argument doesn't apply IMO.

In a righteous world, they absolutely wouldn't apply.

My worry is that with the latest AC Milan ruling, a savvy owner might fight the Football League on any rulings, knowing that if it went to court there is precedent that essentially nullifies FFP.

[Eddie Hitler]

6 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

In a righteous world, they absolutely wouldn't apply.

My worry is that with the latest AC Milan ruling, a savvy owner might fight the Football League on any rulings, knowing that if it went to court there is precedent that essentially nullifies FFP.

Agreed.  Out of "Likes" today though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

In a righteous world, they absolutely wouldn't apply.

My worry is that with the latest AC Milan ruling, a savvy owner might fight the Football League on any rulings, knowing that if it went to court there is precedent that essentially nullifies FFP.

The precedent thing- is that UEFA FFP is a different set of rules- the overarching principle the same, but a different set of rule to reflect the different nature of the competition, of income etc.

The reason Milan got off predominantly I believe was because of an inconsistency of punishment. A key, key thing that they did in Court was to request the CAS ordered UEFA to release the balance sheets of PSG, Man City and Inter- and the CAS did.

If income of those 3 was inflated artificially and they did not get an expulsion from a European competition- therefore the case can fall down.

The difference in this instance is that these Football League FFP Rules were agreed in 16/17 and amended, updated and there is no precedent of new owners and spending yet- so they wouldn't have that to fall back on, necessarily. Though it could go either way of course. This puts it a lot better than me!

[bengalcub]

Footballs gone mad if Steve Bruce loses his job after the season where he lost the playoff final 0-1 , to be replaced by a “ name” with next to no experience .... hope the club go down again absolute joke ....

[JamesBCFC]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@JoeAman08 Maybe the EFL give new owners a bit of leeway provided they have a solid plan. UEFA seem to, but didn't realise the EFL system was the same?

@pride of the west EFL can dock points now based on accounts projected by the club if there is a severe breach. New system was introduced in 16/17 so this would actually be the first year clubs might face a proper reckoning based on fully joined up new system over 3 years.

@Tomarse To date tend to agree- but see above about the big changes, accounts projected by the clubs themselves mean there's very limited room for complaint IMO.

@Monkeh Agreed. It resolves their cash flow and solvency issues and reduces pressure to sell, but doesn't really improve their FFP position which is what clubs are judged on.

Are the projected accounts going to be thoroughly checked though?

Otherwise the clubs will just fudge the projected stuff so that they'd pass FFP, then if they don't meet those numbers say "we miscalculated, was only a projection after all"

[Guest]

10 hours ago, EnderMB said:

In a righteous world, they absolutely wouldn't apply.

My worry is that with the latest AC Milan ruling, a savvy owner might fight the Football League on any rulings, knowing that if it went to court there is precedent that essentially nullifies FFP.

It's a shit defence really - FFP applies to the entity; the club, not the owners. A change in ownership is irrelevant. What AC Milan did was to expose the bias in UEFA, allowing certain clubs discretion and not others. It makes me wonder whether the spotlight needs to be thrown on to UEFA in the way it was FIFA a few years ago. If I was an investigative journalist I'd be asking for some time to investigate. 

[downendcity]

57 minutes ago, 29AR said:

It's a shit defence really - FFP applies to the entity; the club, not the owners. A change in ownership is irrelevant. What AC Milan did was to expose the bias in UEFA, allowing certain clubs discretion and not others. It makes me wonder whether the spotlight needs to be thrown on to UEFA in the way it was FIFA a few years ago. If I was an investigative journalist I'd be asking for some time to investigate. 

Earlier in this thread I mentioned having read the Villa fans forum. In it there was a post suggesting that ffp was introduced to protect the very top clubs, so that other clubs would not be able to knock them off their pedestal if a wealthy sugar daddy comes along and pumps a fortune into the club - very much pulling up the ladder after them.

I can't see there was any motive in introducing ffp, other than t prevent whats has nearly happened to villa, i.e. a club folding due to an unmanageable level of debt being built up in an attempt to gain promotion or in the aftermath of relegation .

However, as the wealth and power of the very top clubs in Europe has grown, and with moves to form some sort of european super league being mooted, would it be beyond the realms of possibility that UEFA might look more favourably on their "chosen" clubs, so as to not queer the pitch if such a super league should be formed in the future?

AC Milan have fallen down the pecking order in recent years, so UEFA would have been quite happy "throwing the book" at them - in the same way you always feel we get the book thrown at us by the FA, when they wouldn't penalise someone like Man U for the same offences! AC Milan played their joker by asking for the accounts of PSG and Man City to be released - effectively accusing UEFA of double standards.

With the amounts of money now sloshing round at the top of the game  you can bet that the people at the top of UEFA want to get their hands on some of it, so will cozy up the top clubs. 

Sadly, as with so much of what's wrong with football these days, it's all about the money.

[havanatopia]

3 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Are the projected accounts going to be thoroughly checked though?

Otherwise the clubs will just fudge the projected stuff so that they'd pass FFP, then if they don't meet those numbers say "we miscalculated, was only a projection after all"

You cannot 'fudge' accounts unless people want to risk a prison sentence, auditors included. Furthermore HMRC will be all over Villa's accounts like a virus with no cure. 

If the rules are correctly applied by the footballing authorities and that may be a big if then no amount of new money or new majority shareholders has any 'positive' impact as far as FFP is concerned. 

[JamesBCFC]

1 hour ago, havanatopia said:

You cannot 'fudge' accounts unless people want to risk a prison sentence, auditors included. Furthermore HMRC will be all over Villa's accounts like a virus with no cure. 

If the rules are correctly applied by the footballing authorities and that may be a big if then no amount of new money or new majority shareholders has any 'positive' impact as far as FFP is concerned. 

But the projected stuff the EFL are now asking for is a seperate thing isnt it?

I'm not saying they falsify their actual accounts.

[PHILINFRANCE]

19 hours ago, Drew Peacock said:

I quite agree.  I am struggling to think of many great players who turned out to be great managers.  Dalglish, but that is going back a bit, there must be others?

Brian Clough?

[Eddie Hitler]

2 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Brian Clough?

Clough was certainly a very good player but his career was cut short by a bad injury before he could go on to the heights for which he looked destined.

So he had considerable unfinished business and wanted to be a great manager to make up for his not making it as a great player because of that injury.

It seems to be about hunger for success in the game which if you've had it as a player then you're not as motivated in management.  I'm talking about the really top players - twenty England caps.

A good example is: how many of the England Works Cup winning squad became good managers?

One: Jack Charlton.

The only other one with anything approaching a decent managerial career was Alan Ball and he was practically a byword for poor management.

 

[cidercity1987]

12 hours ago, bengalcub said:

Footballs gone mad if Steve Bruce loses his job after the season where he lost the playoff final 0-1 , to be replaced by a “ name” with next to no experience .... hope the club go down again absolute joke ....

Cough cough 2004 cough cough

[EnderMB]

8 hours ago, havanatopia said:

You cannot 'fudge' accounts unless people want to risk a prison sentence, auditors included. Furthermore HMRC will be all over Villa's accounts like a virus with no cure. 

If the rules are correctly applied by the footballing authorities and that may be a big if then no amount of new money or new majority shareholders has any 'positive' impact as far as FFP is concerned. 

They always say that accounting is an art, rather than a science. 

The books are fudged by everyone, whether they be limited companies or football clubs. Whether it's delaying payments past final warnings to reap tax benefits, three-way income chains, utilising agents to bring income for unwanted players, etc, there are plenty of ways to fudge the books if you're a football club.

[downendcity]

Steve Bruce has been given full support by Villa's new owners, following a meeting today.

Henry to be appointed `anytime soon then?

[chinapig]

12 hours ago, EnderMB said:

They always say that accounting is an art, rather than a science. 

The books are fudged by everyone, whether they be limited companies or football clubs. Whether it's delaying payments past final warnings to reap tax benefits, three-way income chains, utilising agents to bring income for unwanted players, etc, there are plenty of ways to fudge the books if you're a football club.

Villa are going to have to be pretty good at fudging. The Guardian is reporting that they need to find another £40m to comply with FFP.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/25/steve-bruce-stay-on-aston-villa-manager-crunch-meeting-with-owners

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Villa are going to have to be pretty good at fudging. The Guardian is reporting that they need to find another £40m to comply with FFP.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/25/steve-bruce-stay-on-aston-villa-manager-crunch-meeting-with-owners

Weirdly that's the rumoured price of Grealish 

[EnderMB]

If Villa needed £40m, they could probably get that cash pretty easily. If they sell Grealish, Kodjia, and maybe move McCormack on to another Championship team on the cheap that'll probably be £40m off of their yearly budget.

Since Bruce has decided to stay, I'm starting to wonder whether this was a tale of two scenarios:

1. Villa decide to sell their prize assets to make FFP. Bruce has a contract that says he has control over transfers, and selling his prize assets would mean he terminates his contract and demands the entirety of his contract paid. Henry lined up as a cheap option to have a crack at promotion without the stars, or as a stop-gap before a better alternative comes.
2. Villa keep their prize assets, and have one more crack at promotion with Bruce. If they fail, they accept their punishment, or spend the year building up a case to fight it.