The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

Oh yeah, think I recall.

My tip to go to or to explore going to CAS was NOT necessarily to defer punishment but to try and get the accounts or Projected Accounts of other sides strongly rumoured to be in breach seen- see CAS AC Milan 2018, when they nearly got disclosure of Inter Milan, Man City and PSG- a point that if Birmingham are to be punished then everyone else must be too.

https://www.football-italia.net/124755/inter-balance-sheets-cas

I want no free passes for any side. None.

My legal angle was for Birmingham to get proper disclosure of all to punish all if necessary or properly try all if necessary at least, not to get anyone off the hook!

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

I'm not quite sure that's the consideration with FFP tbh.

Check your Operating Losses in 2017/18, use these as a starting point, work out Parachute Payments and the differences between them in 2017/18 and last year- Profit on Transfers. Granted wages will have fell but you made that £54m operating loss that year- despite £33m in Parachute Payments and £13m in Profit on Transactions etc.

Your Accumulated FFP losses to May 2018 in the Chamopipinship were about £24-25m after allowabvle costs.

Your allowable costs in the 2017/18 season were about £15m and about £10-11m in 2016/17.

Means you could lose in gross accounting terms £29-30m last season, in FFP terms about £29-30m. The Villa Park valuation should've been tested at the time by the EFL as soon as they got wind of it, and actually if it was done post March 2019 then there is an argument to say that it shouldn't have counted for FFP purposes. I have a feeling that- and not just with you- but in the last 2 seasons under Shaun Harevey, these Projected Accounts were not necessarily applied correctly in a fair few cases.

The funny thing is, £56.7m does seem reasonable but the question is, how are Impairment and the possible treatment of Depreciation factored in? You're not guilty until proven otherwise but a lot of things merit rigorous investigation!

@Davefevs Might have been @YorkshireAVFC but not seen him on Twitter for a while. His calculations and projections were not very different to mine, Kieran Maguire's or Swiss Ramble's btw.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Here are some calculations I made a little while ago too, if anyone interested.

Hopefully this will come out alright- and I haven't yet factored in a ground sale and leaseback.

Nor have I factored in Traore sell on clause. About £3.6m if reports to be believed. That loss is of course before the allowable FFP deductions but given this is on the basis of those being much the same, they wouldn't make any difference as such.

The Headline loss was inclusive of Parachute Payments, Profit on Transfers and HS2 or similar compensation- but before the allowable costs that you deduct.

it's possible that when including the ground sale that Aston Villa scraped it but certainly passed, but that any downward adjustment would see a fail- and the size of the adjustment would impact upon the size of the overspend.

I don't know why it's formatting like this- leaving half a post space blank! 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

Agreed ultimately but part of me wonders about how it pans out in the event of no soft embargo breach.

The EFL did want Pedersen included too but think they made an error at their end which meant it couldn't be included.

Was 7 for the loss, 3 for a deliberate breach and 1 given back for admitting it- or something?

Then what is Projected Accounts all about? 

• T=Existing season, Projected Accounts- and tbh by March 2019 clubs should have a fair idea of their profits- or at this level mostly, losses- for the season.
• T-1=Prior season real accounts.
• T-2= Season before that real accounts.

The onus is on the EFL to the maximum extent of their power, to get clubs to prove optimistic assertions on Player Profit sales or large exceptional items. This is part of Gibson's issue IMO.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

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”. 

[Delta]

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).

[Mr Popodopolous]

31 minutes ago, Delta said:

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).

There is the fair value test.

The Impairment and the depreciation- I think that is still an issue up for debate, personally.

Do I think there has been a definite and cast iron breach? No, in the cold light of day. How can I until the accounts are out? Do I think it needs to be explored to the max- absolutely.

It might be e.g. that the Sale Price was fair but the Impairment was questionable- profit reduced. Or the Impairment was incorrectly applied last May which means Fair Value decreased- profit reduced.

Or it could be that all is okay...I've been researching Impairment and Depreciation for Fixed Assets. Still pretty unclear...whether Recoverable Amount means eliminate Deprecation on sale or not, it seems a fairly movable feast.

I note that in both 2016/17 and 2017/18, the Impairment listed in the Fixed Assets for 2015/16 seems to be bundled together under Accumulated Depreciation. Worth a closer look by specialist accountants? Or it might be fine!

I'm unsure whether it should be Book Value or Net Book Value when it comes to Impairment of a Tangible Asset for a start.

IF it was restated to Fair Value or again to Fair Value in 2018 when you had the takeover, then that could impact upon the Profit on Disposal at the end of last season- an adjustment impacts upon FFP.

Derby and Sheffield Wednesday both sold their grounds to reach FFP compliance- but investigation meant that there was a case to answer in the end.

I think that there has been no charge tbh, because it's still a live issue but in a state of hiatus partly a) Due to the accounts not yet being out and b) Due to yourselves having been promoted.

There will still be no charge, if all is well- but it's basically in hiatus atm I think.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Delta said:

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by downendcity

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, Delta said:

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).

The problem is, if you have breached for the three year period, the horse has bolted.  Until you publish your accounts we don’t know.

You don’t seem to get that we are speculating and therefore discussing on a forum stuff that has been put out in the media.

If this thread is nonsense, why not scroll past it?

We’ve had some good debate on this thread with fans of other clubs, and we’ve had some who seem to be worried by it.  It’s a forum, it’s not a court.

 

[AnotherDerbyFan]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd assume that for that to occur- and it didn't in the Adams case, either:

a) The accounting period would have to be moved and probably with prior consent of EFL for FFP purposes?

b) There would need to be active proof and demonstration of the proof of a prior or ongoing agreement for this transfer to have occurred from before the date.

I can't think of many other cases where it would- or more likely should- be allowable. I know that Tom Ince was sold by Derby in on 4th July 2017 but included in 2016-17 accounts even though their accounts at the club level ran until June 30th 2017.

However at the SEVCO 5112 level, the accounts ran until 31st August 2016- whereas they ran for Derby County until 30th June 2016.

I don't have time to delve into the figures at hand right now but an interesting aspect is that in one of the years- possibly 2015/16- the Sevco 5112 Limited accounts showed a profit on transfers substantially above that of Derby County for the same period!

Having said that, that could be partially down to takeover and additionally, it's not like the aggregate sum of the two seasons differs in any vast way, possibly not at all.

We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t.

There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, AnotherDerbyFan said:

We sold Ince on the 4th July 2017, and Hughes on the 24th. The sale of one was included in the 16/17 accounts, the other wasn’t.

There are suspicions Weimann’s transfer on the 3rd July 2018 will fall under the account period ending 17/18?

3rd July 2018.

2018/19 accounts surely? Don't suppose it makes much difference in the end with the 3 year periods. Could've had you been promoted. 

Just a little confused as to why Sevco 5112 an Derby County Accounts show differentials in distribution of the profits on player sales. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

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.

[AnAstonVillafan]

On 14/02/2020 at 14:32, Mr Popodopolous said:

Cash flow and FFP are significantly different and though the debt was removed and the immediate issues cleared, I'm unsure how it impacts upon FFP. I don't know though, was there some special exemption for Aston Villa? The owners sorted the cashflow issue, the debt issue- the FFP problem is or was more complicated.

So. What. Cut your cloth accordingly- sign cheaper, use youth more. You don't 'have' to replace loanees as such.

Yes, I forgot about compensation for Bruce and compensation to Brentford for Smith- that can add to the losses?

Your club should be worried or at least have pause for thought on return...just seem something interesting about Sheffield Wednesday! Remember clubs demanding punishment for Birmingham surely helped to escalate that...I know they were in breach but it seemed that them signing Pedersen irked many rival clubs- and I wonder how it would've panned out in those early days, if they had stuck to the soft embargo...

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11703/11933677/sheffield-wednesday-clubs-demand-points-deduction-over-sale-of-hillsborough-to-dejphon-chansiri

Clubs set the rules!! Fairly sure some of Leeds points deductions were voted for by clubs! They could quite easily vote on something about Aston Villa, especially if everyone else gets punished or at least referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission.

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

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.

When I say replace, I mean replace perhaps numeriocally but not perhaps calibre or wage wise. Snodgrass goes out, in comes Bolasie and El Ghazi- granted the former left after half a season.

Out goes Grabban, in comes Tammy. Those are not terribly cheap.

I question the stadium sale owing to the Impairment in 2015/16 but I digress, the 2018/19 Accounts will be my new starting point.

Or if you get them in, you sell some key assets to help fund them in order to stick within the below.

It means that if a club are close to breaching FFP regs, you spend lower, you put more of an emphasis on youth and if you exceed these limits you- not just you tbh, any club, then they get dealt with accordingly.

Completely different and more complex case, but as we heard Friday evening. Man City banned for 2 years from European competition- feels pretty well deserved it must be said!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

Wow, your fanbase love to bury their heads in the sand- your forum on the issue of FFP is quite something it must be said! 

Newsflash, if Man City and AC Milan can get kicked out of European competition, you certainly are not too big to be looked at in the summer or perhaps even when you return to the EFL!

SJG? Him or Neves? Wonder who is better value.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

When I post on other club’s forums I show a bit of respect.  

[Delta]

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?

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Delta said:

My forum?

SJG £80m minimum

Neves Does anyone even want him?

Villa forum, whatever- your fans forum.

Grealish or Neves at value price...well the transfer market is crazy but perhaps the latter has stalled a bit, £80m minimum but if it was a case that you needed to sell him before the end of your Reporting Period that may not be the case.

On your other points, I wanted Birmingham to explore the CAS to try and force production of financial statements to compare against- not to get off the hook but to try and get equitable punishment if necessary- like AC Milan did.

£200m Villa Park? Paper or Twitter talk, but tbh sure I saw some of your own fans online gloating about £200m or similar.

Actually, the £200m figure was sourced from one of your own fan pages!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

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?

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Delta said:

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?

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!

Should also add, though you'll know this already of course- debt write offs are fine and fine for accounts and there could have been debt written off on takeover, but it doesn't count for FFP so always subtract that from the income/profit.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

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.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Delta said:

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.

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.

Is it perhaps possible that the EFL pass or fail on the strength the initial figures ie £39m Yes/No Pass/Fail, and then investigate the detail later? I don't think it's an ideal system and it really needs to be tightened if possible, but this might be how they operate it.

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.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

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?

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Delta said:

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

In fairness to me, I've never really suggested the new owners or Xia for that matter are odious.

Purslow I don't like, granted- seems a slick and dislikeable individual let's say.

Mainly on social media, your fans seem terribly arrogant. I'm glad you made this post tbh, as I should add there are two Villa fans I know who I have a lot of time for. Maybe social media amplifies but a belief that the rules may have been circumnavigated when so many clubs not least my own have made major efforts and major sacrifices to comply, multipled by the sheer arrogance of quite a high % of social media Aston Villa fan output and especially on this issue, hardens my position too. Perhaps my position varies but I'm still convinced that there may well be a case to answer.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

@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.

[Delta]

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. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Delta said:

"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. 

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.

Btw, yourself and the Derby fan aside, I've never known anyone join an opposition forum solely to debate FFP- the joys of modern football eh! 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[bcfc01]

12 minutes ago, Delta said:

"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. 

[Delta]

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.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Delta said:

"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. 

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.

 

[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?

[reddevil]

On 14/02/2020 at 20:56, Delta said:

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.

Just a couple of points on this. I don’t get the arguement that having loan players is a way of pleading poverty, Tammy could easily have cost Villa c£4-5m for last season based on estimates for loan fees and assuming his wages are paid in full. However the bigger arguement is more conceptual, FFP exists to make the league more susbstainable, and clubs like Villa, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Reading have have used a loophole to bastardize it, to the detriment of other clubs playing within the spirt of the rules.

[Delta]

3 minutes ago, reddevil said:

Just a couple of points on this. I don’t get the arguement that having loan players is a way of pleading poverty, Tammy could easily have cost Villa c£4-5m for last season based on estimates for loan fees and assuming his wages are paid in full. However the bigger arguement is more conceptual, FFP exists to make the league more susbstainable, and clubs like Villa, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Reading have have used a loophole to bastardize it, to the detriment of other clubs playing within the spirt of the rules.

So you can loan Tammy but we can't?

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Delta said:

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?

You miss the debate.....again!!!

Your argument was that if you had to sell a player because of FFP you shouldn’t have resort to playing youngsters, you should be able to bring in someone equally as good.  If you can do that for free, then great.

We don’t have FFP to worry about, because we accept that when we sell a player for £7m (Flint) we can’t then go and spend another £7m on his replacement.  We go and buy Webster for £3.5m.  When we sell him for £20m (so glad it was Brighton rather than you!!), we can spend £7m on Kalas.  When we sell Reid for £9m, we buy Andi Weimann for £2m and Mo Eisa for £800k.  You see that when your costs outweighs your income, you have to make that money up somewhere.  And then we also rely on bringing Kelly (An 18 year old in) through because we sell a Joe Bryan....and sell him for £15m ahead of the end of our accounting period, and we report a profit.  You see, we are forced into bringing youngsters in.  Some will come through our academy like Reid, Bryan and Kelly.  Others like Flint we bought for 300k as a 22 year old late developer, Brownhill for youth development compensation.  We then develop them.  We accept that.  You see bitter that Grealish might have had to be sold.  But you’re a huge club, so that’s ok.

When we see your 18/19 accounts and they’ve been analysed by more (much more) experts than me in Kieran and Swiss, we’ll see what’s really happened.  Might all be fine, in which case you can sit their smugly.  But it does make you wonder why so many people have questioned your FFP position..

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Delta said:

So you can loan Tammy but we can't?

Yep, because:

• he was 18 at the time, having made 2 senior sub appearances
• he didn’t cost us a several £million loan fee
• he didn’t cost us £50k plus in wages per week

We would love to have brought him back here last season (more so to piss you off probably), but guess what?  We accepted he was beyond our budget.  We would’ve liked him back when he was going to Swansea, but we accepted we couldn’tt afford it.

You obviously could.....

......or took the gamble you’d be promoted before the EFL would act if (if!!!) you did go over.

[Delta]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You miss the debate.....again!!!

Your argument was that if you had to sell a player because of FFP you shouldn’t have resort to playing youngsters, you should be able to bring in someone equally as good.  If you can do that for free, then great.

We don’t have FFP to worry about, because we accept that when we sell a player for £7m (Flint) we can’t then go and spend another £7m on his replacement.  We go and buy Webster for £3.5m.  When we sell him for £20m (so glad it was Brighton rather than you!!), we can spend £7m on Kalas.  When we sell Reid for £9m, we buy Andi Weimann for £2m and Mo Eisa for £800k.  You see that when your costs outweighs your income, you have to make that money up somewhere.  And then we also rely on bringing Kelly (An 18 year old in) through because we sell a Joe Bryan....and sell him for £15m ahead of the end of our accounting period, and we report a profit.  You see, we are forced into bringing youngsters in.  Some will come through our academy like Reid, Bryan and Kelly.  Others like Flint we bought for 300k as a 22 year old late developer, Brownhill for youth development compensation.  We then develop them.  We accept that.  You see bitter that Grealish might have had to be sold.  But you’re a huge club, so that’s ok.

When we see your 18/19 accounts and they’ve been analysed by more (much more) experts than me in Kieran and Swiss, we’ll see what’s really happened.  Might all be fine, in which case you can sit their smugly.  But it does make you wonder why so many people have questioned your FFP position..

Great

Who said we had to sell players because of FFP though?

[Delta]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, because:

• he was 18 at the time, having made 2 senior sub appearances
• he didn’t cost us a several £million loan fee
• he didn’t cost us £50k plus in wages per week

We would love to have brought him back here last season (more so to piss you off probably), but guess what?  We accepted he was beyond our budget.  We would’ve liked him back when he was going to Swansea, but we accepted we couldn’tt afford it.

You obviously could.....

......or took the gamble you’d be promoted before the EFL would act if (if!!!) you did go over.

Interesting

Where have you sourced the wages that we were paying him from?

Likewise, where have you sourced the "several million" that we were paying for him from?

[reddevil]

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

Interesting

Where have you sourced the wages that we were paying him from?

Likewise, where have you sourced the "several million" that we were paying for him from?

This article suggests the wages would have been c£2m for the season. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/tammy-abraham-wolves-aston-villa-15636578.amp In terms of a fee there is no evidence for this but fees for similar players like Nketiah have been quoted around £3m a season, hence why i said £4-5m was an estimate. 

[Davefevs]

19 minutes ago, Delta said:

Interesting

Where have you sourced the wages that we were paying him from?

Likewise, where have you sourced the "several million" that we were paying for him from?

FFS, none of us has his actual contract, but if we take Swansea’s loan, it was rumoured that a £5m loan fee, he’d just signed a £25k per week plus £25k per game (and other bonuses) contract, so Swansea had to pay him circa £50k per week because if they just paid his basic £25k, he was losing out on the opportunity to earn his bonuses.

This Forum is speculating stuff from a multitude of sources.  You don’t know unless you are at Villa, and neither do I.

But I do know that you don’t loan a multi-million pound asset out as a favour.  We’ve had enough loan business with Chelsea.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Delta said:

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.

Oh dear, a range of different interpretations let's call them. 

The £200m for Villa Park speculation was angry and more importantly sourced from an ASTON VILLA fan or related PAGE. I even linked it earlier and I'm happy to do so again and look for the original. 

Birmingham to the CAS, is actually based on a genuine sports legal precedent. Put into Google 'Inter balance sheets at CAS'.

Uefa at that time stood accused of preferential treatment of certain clubs, in this instance Man City, PSG and maybe Inter, hence the case by AC Milan. The EFL at that time stood accused of preferential treatment of a variety of clubs while. Loose parallels. 

Grealish sale idea was just one of many methods speculating how Aston Villa might have met FFP. The ground sale and leasebacks hadn't fully come to light yet at that time.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

As promised I have found those two links.

https://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/villa-sell-villa-park-to-themselves-for-56-7-million-why-so-cheap/

This was where it was referenced that they had previously said they were of the view that £200m could be reasonable.

Some key snippets below, some clear key snippets bolded.

Quote

It seems there might be some concern amongst the fans that the ground doesn’t on paper belong to Aston Villa, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, as when it comes to any future sale of the club, it would surely have to include Villa park?
So really, nothing has changed, except that we’ve balanced the book as regards to FFP.

I think it was pretty obvious this was going to happen, as nobody could see how we could possibly balance the books otherwise, but what is niggling me, is why so cheap?

Quote

As opposed to Villa Park, which is much loved throughout the game, even if it is a bit dated in places.

When the subject of Villa park being sold came up a few weeks ago, I said that I thought we could probably get away for selling at £200 million, purely because of it’s history and heritage. I think it’s still held more FA cup semis than any other stadium, if memory serves me right and although the trophy is somwhat devalued these days, it’s still important.
Putting a price on that sort of thing is really difficult.

So why only £56 odd million then?
Perhaps that was all that was needed, but this is a one-off thing and surely if the owners had bought it for say, £150 million, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t have, as it gives you a nice big FFP cushion to play with, bearing in mind no money has changed hands, except on paper?

There’s obviously a reason and perhaps it’s just that we didn’t want to be seen as taking the proverbial, in the way Derby have. Or maybe you have to demonstrate fair value, bearing in mind the price Sawaris and Edens paid for the whole club?
But that makes me wonder how Derby have got away with it?

https://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/thoughts-on-derby-and-are-we-selling-villa-park/

Quote

It seems the powers-that-be are going to clamp down on this sort of thing, but we all know how slow they move and in my opinion it would be a restiction of trade anyway, so you would assume it’s still an option for us, should we fail to get promoted.

The big question for me, is what is Villa Park worth?

The club is valued at £75-125 million, take your pick, it’s all about how much someone wants it.
But given that Villa Park is renowned as one of the finest traditional stadiums in the world, let alone England, you have to wonder what it might be valued at.

You might laugh, but I’d suggest £200 million on paper isn’t out of the question, given some of the figures I’ve seen in the financial world.
Classic stadiums aren’t ten a penny, after all.

Of course, all this assumes we don’t get promoted.
If we do, it won’t matter, at least in the short term anyway.

Make of this what you will...the author seems to be very crowing, across their two pieces?

For balance, they also state that it's as bent as it gets.

Quote

If so, to my mind, this is as legally bent as it gets.
You’re effectively selling the stadium to yourself.
Yet this sort of thing happens all the time in the financial world, as companies are seen as seperate entities from those who own them.
Indeed, it’s already happened in the English game.

They also fail to note that this shell company was actually formed in 2017 and merely moved from the direct group to the direct control of the owners...

Clearly though, the first time £200m was sourced by me, was from an Aston Villa related page!

Edited February 17, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Harry]

Quelle surprise. 
A Villa fan in denial. 
Truth is pal, you were very very close to breaching the regs. It was widely acknowledged by the whole football world. 
You may have just gotten away with it. Just. 
Suck it up, be grateful that you might’ve just sneaked under, but don’t come here acting high and ******* mighty and that you weren’t pushing the line. Cuz you were. Very close. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Harry

[Mr Popodopolous]

As far as I can see @Harry it's still not a resolved issue, last I've read on the Aston Villa FFP issue is that the PL haven't yet ratified the sale and leaseback, but obviously that doesn't indicate guilt either. 

Still a live case though I'm thinking, and given that Impaiment in 2016, I'm really wondering about the sale price, profit etc. As you rightly say, they appear to have been within a very close range. 

Could an adjustment to the £56.7m for Villa Park tip them into trouble again? Certainly for the 3 years to May 2019.

Could even be a case that any adjustment at all is the difference between compliance and overspend. Bigger the adjustment the buffer the overspend, the bigger the issue. 

Pride Park eg was sold for £81m with an independent valuation commissioned by them though the method or valuer was not stated in 2018 accounts. EFL commissioned valuation came to £49m or £50m. Similarly, Hillsborough at £60m feels overdone.

Villa Park at £56.7m, surely must be worth a close look by the EFL especially on their return, whenever that may be.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

11 hours ago, Harry said:

Quelle surprise. 
A Villa fan in denial. 
Truth is pal, you were very very close to breaching the regs. It was widely acknowledged by the whole football world. 
You may have just gotten away with it. Just. 
Suck it up, be grateful that you might’ve just sneaked under, but don’t come here acting high and ******* mighty and that you weren’t pushing the line. Cuz you were. Very close. 

Denial of what exactly?

There is nothing to deny.  We have broken no rules.  Being close to a threshold is a completely different thing to being over it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Delta said:

Denial of what exactly?

There is nothing to deny.  We have broken no rules.  Being close to a threshold is a completely different thing to being over it.

What you don't seem to grasp is that your case is perhaps still live, albeit in a state of hiatus- suspended animation.

I'd say it's up in the air- just because you have not yet sanctioned rules doesn't mean that Investigations couldn't down the line prove it to be the case. I suspect even a small adjustment to the Villa Park sale and leaseback price could throw up problems, to May 2019 at least.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

What is interesting is what I've seen on Twitter. This is NOT Aston Villa related but info about the FFP stuff.

Will try to find the original link later but...

Looks as if the Sheffield Wednesday case has concluded, or at least the aspect in which they have challenged the lawfulness side of it. EFL vs Derby at the actual breach level, the actual Commission is ongoing.

What is also interesting is that Nick De Marco who seems to be quite prolific in these cases, is representing against the EFL- interesting as he works for Blackstone Chambers- the very company the EFL hired last Autumn as the Investigation developed/progressed. 

Hi @29AR you seem to know about the law, or have done from past postings on here- big company sure but is it normal for lawyers  from same ultimate organisation or two different ones to be involved with both sides? Or one to be representing side A- say the club and one to be overseeing the panel? Charles Flint of Blackstone oversaw the Birmingham case for example- think he was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Commission.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

 ... is it normal for lawyers  from same ultimate organisation or two different ones to be involved with both sides

 

For barristers, yes, common.  They have a different operational set up to other lawyers.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

@29AR you seem to know about the law, or have done from past postings on here- big company sure but is it normal for lawyers  from same ultimate organisation or two different ones to be involved with both sides? Or one to be representing side A- say the club and one to be overseeing the panel? Charles Flint of Blackstone oversaw the Birmingham case for example- think he was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Commission.

Hi Mr P. Yes, it's not uncommon at all, and to prevent conflicts you would set up 'Chinese Walls'. That just means you take every step to make sure each teams are of different staff, that there is no discussion of the case, no passing of info to the other side, and possibly even working in different offices. I have been in this situation myself dozens of times for M&A deals, and whilst it may feel like sides would talk, they really don't. I've never been under one which wasn't - if anything - over-zealously adhered to. 

It is probably more prevalent in M&A where you could have the same firms - lawyers, accountants etc - all acting for both sides just having independent teams. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Guest

[Delta]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What you don't seem to grasp is that your case is perhaps still live, albeit in a state of hiatus- suspended animation.

I'd say it's up in the air- just because you have not yet sanctioned rules doesn't mean that Investigations couldn't down the line prove it to be the case. I suspect even a small adjustment to the Villa Park sale and leaseback price could throw up problems, to May 2019 at least.

Of course I'm aware of this.  However, at this moment in time we are under.  Hence no action from the EFL/PL.

I'm confident that we'll remain under and with a projected overspend of around £25m (your figures), it would have to be a hefty hike on the ground sale to take us over.

You are hoping that we'll be dragged into it.  I see this as little more than straw clutching.  You've speculated all the way through this and being wrong every step of the way.

Out of interest, do you know what figure your lease is for AG?

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Delta said:

Of course I'm aware of this.  However, at this moment in time we are under.  Hence no action from the EFL/PL.

I'm confident that we'll remain under and with a projected overspend of around £25m (your figures), it would have to be a hefty hike on the ground sale to take us over.

You are hoping that we'll be dragged into it.  I see this as little more than straw clutching.  You've speculated all the way through this and being wrong every step of the way.

Out of interest, do you know what figure your lease is for AG?

EPL in recent times haven't had a good track record of enforcing punishment or holding clubs to account in any meaningful way- saw an article on it, but maybe that will change with Man City- or indeed the new EFL/PL alignment?

Profit on sale is price paid minus Value on Books...it isn't the fee you stick in the books, it's the profit. That profit due to the Impairment is questionable, this is the crux of the issue. Needs full exploration.

You may well technically be under but there are a lot of unknowns for you to say that you are in the clear,

This is patently incorrect...some of the 'wrong' claims that you have cited by me have come from VILLA pages! Links are there, go read them...the £200m a notable example.

Whataboutery. Besides which, we made no financial gain from the sale of AG, this was possibly a corporate restructure. Again though, what has rent got to do with it- I've not even mentioned how much you are or should be paying on Villa Park.

Corporate restructure or otherwise, it looks like it was an asset transfer- 2006. Just checked, I say 2006, was in the 2005/06 season- from Bristol City FC Limited to Ashton Gate Limited. No gain, no profit it would seem.

Check 2005/06 Bristol City Limited Accounts- it even states the asset transfer in them, if you scroll down to Page 13 of the accounts made up to 31st May 2006 for either, or both of Bristol City FC and Ashton Gate Limited, it's clearly stated.

Accounting regs may have allowed for it at that time, it will have been above board but there was no gain, no loss- merely an asset transfer. Imagine in League One had we done that and banked say a £10m profit in 2006...no FFP regs either, we could've run all over League One that year!

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[AnAstonVillafan]

On 16/02/2020 at 19:45, Mr Popodopolous said:

When I say replace, I mean replace perhaps numeriocally but not perhaps calibre or wage wise. Snodgrass goes out, in comes Bolasie and El Ghazi- granted the former left after half a season.

Out goes Grabban, in comes Tammy. Those are not terribly cheap.

I question the stadium sale owing to the Impairment in 2015/16 but I digress, the 2018/19 Accounts will be my new starting point.

Or if you get them in, you sell some key assets to help fund them in order to stick within the below.

It means that if a club are close to breaching FFP regs, you spend lower, you put more of an emphasis on youth and if you exceed these limits you- not just you tbh, any club, then they get dealt with accordingly.

Completely different and more complex case, but as we heard Friday evening. Man City banned for 2 years from European competition- feels pretty well deserved it must be said!

I am not in denial. FFP is a real concern to me. Our spend in the 2016-17 season was ...well reckless ?
But I would have to see evidence of wrongdoing before any action was taken against us.
And so far, I dont see any.

I would accept if we were charged and convicted and say the club would deserve any penalty.
I see only resentment that we brought good/high priced players. You have highlighted the the more high profile
arrivals at Aston Villa, but not mentioned where we sold international standard players and
had others taken off the wage bill. Transfers were a two-way activity. You pointed out Snodgrass
however we were only paying one third of his wages. Bolasie earns a kings ransom at Everton but i'm yet
to see proof that we were paying all of his retainer. I'm not convinced.

I know many opposing fans wanted to see us lose Grealish and as I said before it nearly did happen, but in
the Championship we should not be a selling club. Its a club that's going to aim to get back where it was. And we
did blood Green, Hepburn-Murphy & Davis our youth graduates but we cannot fill the team with them.
We were promoted relying our 3rd choice Goalkeeper.

I respect Bristol, hope you get promoted soon, but I'm here to stick up for my club. If I was satisfied that we had done
something wrong I'd be the first one to condemn.

[Mr Popodopolous]

34 minutes ago, AnAstonVillafan said:

I am not in denial. FFP is a real concern to me. Our spend in the 2016-17 season was ...well reckless ?
But I would have to see evidence of wrongdoing before any action was taken against us.
And so far, I dont see any.

I would accept if we were charged and convicted and say the club would deserve any penalty.
I see only resentment that we brought good/high priced players. You have highlighted the the more high profile
arrivals at Aston Villa, but not mentioned where we sold international standard players and
had others taken off the wage bill. Transfers were a two-way activity. You pointed out Snodgrass
however we were only paying one third of his wages. Bolasie earns a kings ransom at Everton but i'm yet
to see proof that we were paying all of his retainer. I'm not convinced.

I know many opposing fans wanted to see us lose Grealish and as I said before it nearly did happen, but in
the Championship we should not be a selling club. Its a club that's going to aim to get back where it was. And we
did blood Green, Hepburn-Murphy & Davis our youth graduates but we cannot fill the team with them.
We were promoted relying our 3rd choice Goalkeeper.

I respect Bristol, hope you get promoted soon, but I'm here to stick up for my club. If I was satisfied that we had done
something wrong I'd be the first one to condemn.

Thank you for a considered and balanced response.

Fair- it's still in a bit of hiatus atm I think. Feels a bit like it anyway.

Well this is true, unsure why Everton making such losses would give a discounbt but I digress- if anything El Ghazi and Bolasie even if the latter for half a season might be a bit more costly than Snodgrass. It's arguable either way in some respects.

This bit I query. If a clubs finances dictate that they need to sell to hit FFP, then that is what they need to do. Like many at this level- the majority in fact. Leeds are a pretty big club...Wood got a major fee, they sold quite big this summer, thinking of it in a 3 year cycle. Doubtless their costs will have stepped up too- Nottingham Forest another example of a big club fallen on hard times who trade- trade maybe a better term. That is some and you get some credit for that, but while I agree you can't necessarily field a youth team, it's important for the integrity of the competition to see the regs adhered to, in real time. For example, if a Projected set of Accounts in March of the existing season shows a forecast overspend with no paper trail of say a stadium sale or more agreeably, player sales pre arranged in the summer...then points docked there and then.

T=Existing Season club Projected Accounts, and T-1 and T-2=Actual Published/Received Accounts. If a stadium sale that's different but then the EFL must commission an Independent valuation before the end of the season to get an adjustment in at the earliest if necessary. Needs rigorous real time monitoring...this might be coming into play now but under Harvey, there were significant shortcomings!!

Fair enough and thanks- you're clearly a big club and obviously people would to stick up for a club- it is always good to have opposition fans putting the counter view, nothing worse than an echo chamber!

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

There are a few curiosities or unique elements about this case though, regardless of Profit and Loss. 

It's a bit of a watershed moment, for a few reasons.

1) First genuine test case of a side whose compliance up for debate promoted under the full 3 years of this new system in play. It was really effective from 2016/17. 3 year cycle. Fits perfectly.

2) The 2016 Impairment. How is and was this factored for in the sale price? No other club who have done this had this as a talking point so it's new ground on the Fair Value front. 

3) Press talk of a disconnect between PL and EFL. Rules are clear but different views on enforcement?

4) Approval. Was it gained, sought? Was any approval for the mere act, ie sale and leaseback or the price and EFL approved valuation too?

4) Interesting line last May about Aston Villa being in a soft embargo. This throws up a few possibilities ranging from maybe to laughable but here goes:

A) Was pure speculation.

B) There was one but EFL ratified and ask. 

C)  There was one but that rumoured disconnect meant it wasn't carried over to PL. 

D) There was one but Aston Villa did a Birmingham on steroids, ignoring it 110%!!

E) They miscalculated in a massive way by believing that 'pay the fine' was still the solution so spent accordingly as PL and EFL FFP used to be different, see the QPR debacle! 

5) This last bit is surely mischief making but anyway, Purslow miscalculated the harmonisation in the regulations. 

6) The EFL gave Aston Villa some bespoke deal due to how close they were to bankruptcy. 

7) As we saw with Birmingham, their Projected Accounts submitted in March 2018 showed decent transfer profits. Their real accounts to June 2018 did not...things were reworked and they were dealt with accordingly! What was in Aston Villa's submitted last March?

At that time, many clubs were rumoured to be in breach, see Al Majir blog, and he seems reputable, and the EFL were quite happy to try to let clubs back to balance if possible with minimum fuss. Rules of the game have changed significantly since then, the landscape has seen some big shifts.

I'd be surprised if the EFL don't have some searching questions if and when Aston Villa return basically. Could even argue duty-bound.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

Any reference to Villa being on a soft embargo in May 2019 is irrelevant given that they didn't have enough money to pay bills.  At the time, the whole squad was up for sale.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://almajir.net/2018/09/03/editorial-efl-questions/

This is from last year @Delta but it genuinely is worth a read. Al Majir is just one of the sources I use but the truth is that May 2019 you had the takeover and were fine for cash and not yet in breach of FFP- the soft embargo was FFP related in May 2019. The embargo was in summer 2018 as you had the significant cashflow issues...but those cashflow issues were distinct from FFP. Like Bolton in fact- whereas Birmingham had cash but were in FFP trouble.

Your 2018 embargo was a registration embargo for the reasons you state- insufficent money to pay bills, think there was something about a tax bill too. Both embargoes but two quite different types and reasons behind them.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

May 2019, we were a PL side (transfer window opens June 1st).

May 2018, we were in all sorts of financial difficulty and could not sign anybody.  I have no idea whether we were on any sort of embargo but it really didn't make much difference anyway as we couldn't afford to bring anyone in.

A registration embargo is what Birmingham were placed on (and subsequently cleared of breaching).  This is because they signed Pederston and argued that if the EFL decided not to register him, they would have loaned him out.  The panel decided that the EFL had not been clear enough. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

You were rumored to have been under a soft embargo in May 2019. That could just have been a hangover from the EFL granted.

Window opened before June 1st actually, we sold Kelly mid May 2019 but it has often been June 1st- I assumed it was as well.

You were technically a PL side having won the playoffs but the official handover or transfer- it's a formality granted- takes place early June I believe.

It's an unanswered question for sure- maybe good, maybe bad, maybe meaningless but if the soft embargo thing is true, well it could've been pre approval of the ground sale.

I'd hope the EFL would have tightened up their procedures between Pedersen and May 2019. 

There could easily be different takes on enforcement- it's a live issue.

Just imagine for one minute- and this is clearly a big no surely in reality, that you signed all those players while under a soft embargo? Signed them but the PL didn't carry over the soft embargo...the amount of issues you would be in back in the EFL would be enormous.

On a serious note, the jury is out BUT if the ground value adjusted and the FFP figures adjusted accordingly and you found guilty of a breach to May 31st 2019 here is my proposed punishment- as punishments should fit the crime, IF the crime proven of course:

1. The points penalty based on the overspend, so that would be 12 on a sliding scale downwards. Say the overspend is like Birmingham that'd be 7 points.
2. Deliberate overspend as per Birmingham? Arguable but that's another 3 points.
3. One point back for abiding by soft embargo in summer 2018.
4. IF proven, just for the sake of argument, say it's proven that you are guilty, Parachute Payments either docked or removed from the FFP calculations. You'd have benefitted from the season in the PL buit if proven, the Parachute Payments should be off limits, whether in reality or for FFP. Either way that would ensure you don't benefit from them IF you were found guilty.
5. EFL Business Plan perhaps, like Birmingham.
6. Resetting of FFP limits to a £13m limit for the first season back at this level- like Birmingham, it'd have to be set somehow to have a target for 2020/21 IF found guilty.

I think that's a fairly broad palette.Oh and it wouldn't reset the clock to zero, merely the excess limits to bring it back to £13m + youth, infrastructure etc.

That's my proposal IF found guilty. Number 4 I couldn't see happening though- as big a fine as possible or as close to the Parachute Payments over 2 years would be a reasonable equivalent. Fine would have to count towards FFP though.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Delta]

I think that any rumors of embargos in May 2019 can safely be dismissed.

The Birmingham decision came in March 2019 so the EFL wouldn't have had too much time to tweak wording.  Whilst it's true that there could be different takes on enforcement, a precedent was set and the odds are that any future panel would follow the decision/precedent set by the original panel.

I think you are clutching at straws with a ground adjustment.  With Derby's being set at around £49m, it makes ours look cheap at £56m.  Furthermore, can you really see the EFL nit picking over a couple of million on a ground sale?  If it was 20 or 30 m then yes but not 4 0r 5 million.  Nobody is going to be that precise.  You are just setting yourself up for disappointment if you think otherwise.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The precedent thing might have validity in some areas but in other areas, it's really a new type of case IF there is a breach. If being the real key term.

I don't know, because Matt Lawton is a pretty reliable source on these issues- him, John Percy and Matt Hughes seem to have strong contacts either in clubs or at the EFL. Anyway what I think CAN be safely dismissed is the idea that you'd be under a soft embargo but breach it by spending £100m...that would leave the EFL with no choice but to look to impose huge sanctions and I'm sure no club would really chance that. Possibly the Soft Embargo was lifted the day your Registration was officially transferred to the PL- see Golden Share. I was mischief making slightly on the idea that you'd disregard a soft embargo by spending £100m- I don't believe that but I do believe that there may have been one in May 2019, but that it may have been lifted or cleared.

Where the Precedent thing would apply is in terms of the sliding scale of points to loss ratio. There is one- you think they wouldn't punish minor breaches? How come they are seeking to dock Birmingham 3 points for the Business Plan issue- granted a minor breach might mean a minor punishment but if you think the EFL would be looking to let say a minor breach go entirely then that wouldn't be the case.

It does not necessarily make it look cheap because it was sold to a Related Party and Accounting and valuation rules are applicable- but I see what you are saying, yes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2SEpMeX0AI4h7S.png

This appears to be the sliding scale and this is line with what media said- if an adjustment took you into overspend then the EFL WOULD be duty-bound to investigate and charge if necessary.

Any breach would surely get a points deduction- how could it not? The question is the size of the breach and whether there are mitigating and aggravating factors.I would also add that based on the Birmingham case, an EFL 'agreed' Business Plan and a loss limit of £13m for the existing season, would be on the table- as it was what Birmingham had last season and part of that might still be in force.

You will also be aware that IF you win the Carling Cup, UEFA will have something to say surely about your accounts. Because UEFA rules specifically exclude fixed asset sale transaction profits from their calculations- so a place in Europe would be open to question. As the UEFA 3 year loss limits are €30m plus allowable costs.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[CyderInACan]

On 18/02/2020 at 10:55, 29AR said:

Hi Mr P. Yes, it's not uncommon at all, and to prevent conflicts you would set up 'Chinese Walls'.

In China, they’re just called walls. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

In terms of one of the other clubs, ie Sheffield Wednesday, I'm still struggling with the £60m sale price for Hillsborough.

Will post some snippets later, from accounts to give context. All I do know is that it was revalued on a Depreciated Replacement Cost basis 2014 at £22.25m.

Make of this what you will?

Asset inflation in Sheffield must be through the roof? Granted there is/has been a Revaluation Reserve and there were some additions stated at cost, but I still think around £30-35m all told.

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

For comparison purposes, the year before the sale and leaseback was meant to have occurred- still using the 2014 revalued figure as a starting point...

All seems reasonably consistent- and actually does going back to 1990 within certain ranges.

Seems like they suddenly started carrying it at cost in 2016!

However transitional arrangements between old accounting and FRS 102 or not, I see nothing to justify an automatic upswing- the flip-side is that they were carrying it well below what they should've beem for over 2 decades. I don't see how the two stack up.

Because even if that cost figure is the new one, I struggle to see how the value or cost have shifted so much in 4 short years- or was it 5!

Edited February 19, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Will look at Aston Villa and their stadium price or otherwise later, or tomorrow.

Ah screw it, why not- have it to hand!

 

Now in fairness, it is consistently, has been consistently, carried at cost it seems BUT the Impairment makes a difference, absolutely.

We have to assume there are some reasonably in line calculations with fair value based on what we know because in 2007.

As we can see, in 2007 the Fair Value Adjustment on takeover was made- this was the new Value of the Tangible Fixed Assets, however it stated "Provisional Fair Value". There appears to have been no adjustment, in fact the closest from the data we have available that we can see was the Impairment in 2016.

As we can see, as of 2006-07, the Fair Value of the Fixed Assets was equal to the Book Value following Revaluation. Actually, it wasn't quite! Maybe that takes into account historical differences in depreciation? Was broadly the same anyway, save for about £600k difference.

It is therefore fair to state, IMO that there will be undoubted questions to answer, to be answered- fair to state it at this stage.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I've worked out the mistake I made I think- wasn't factoring in Tangible Fixed Assets before Additions, plus was focusing on Tangible Fixed Assets only under the relevant bit for Villa Park, whereas I should've factored in the whole lot at that stage.

It goes Acquisition of Subsidiaries at Book Value + Fair Value Adjustment (Provisional)=Provisional Fair Value.

Point is that these seem broadly in line or were at the time and there was no broad adjustment, apart from the obvious e.g. Additions, Depreciation- up or down- made until the Impairment.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now this COULD be a valid argument.

For Sheffield Wednesday, taken from Owlstalk.

Quote

Valuation of commercial property isn't straightforward. The value can often be more about the lease than the bricks and mortar. For instance, an empty shop in a town centre isn't worth a great deal but sign a 25 year lease with Marks and Spencer and its a good solid investment and worth much more. If Chansiri has a lease with the club it would make the transaction more credible and if it is for say £3m-£4m a year for 25 years,  it would back up the £60m valuation as you would expect a return of 4 - 6% if renting to a  'blue chip' company which Chansiri would be classed as based on his wealth.

The problem with this is, that it assumes a £3-4m lease per year.

The Accounts suggest the following:

Well for some reason, it won't let me take a full on snapshot of the two years but...

As we can see they are paying or will in the season just gone, if this is accurate, be paying £369k per year rent on Hillsborough AT MOST! Certainly in Year 1. That 2nd attachment is the figures for the corresponding years. 2017. Seems they paid £98,000 i 2016/17 on finance leases.

This means that if this is right, they're paying the princely sum of £271k per season on a £60m transaction!! Some assumptions here as the rent not disclosed anywhere else...0.45% yield!

[Delta]

For anyone who thinks the HS2 money went towards keeping in line with FFP, here's another myth dispelled:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-hs2-bodymoor-heath-17777373

[Mr Popodopolous]

A while ago I DID wonder about Bodymoor Heath or otherwise. Would it class as income for FFP purposes? The article really doesn't make it clear on first glance.

I did point out a while back that the chairman of HS2 in that area was a certain Steve Hollis...wouldn't be a former Aston Villa chairman would it?

https://wmgrowth.com/article/steve-hollis-announced-as-the-new-chair-of-the-west-midlands-combined-authority-hs2-growth-delivery-board

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/former-aston-villa-chair-announced-as-wmca-hs2-growth-delivery-chair

Which year did it fall in- was it income or Infrastructure spending?

A quick skimread of the Q and A preview/exerts, has Purslow stating compliance with FFP.

Seems taxpayers funded their new academy, due to HS2?!

Edited February 20, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous