Financial (Un)Fair Play.

[The binman chronicles]

Tell them we'll respond after every other club has responded to their own pitch invasions.

Any mention of Vierra volleying a young lad ?

Everton hit with a 200 million fine, 15 point deduction, 3 year transfer ban.

Man City and Nottingham Forest are hit with a services to the community award for allowing fans to meet their heroes and punch their opponents.

 

[Hellerad]

The reality is we need an owner who can launder investments through sponsorships from companies they own or their buddies own.

Mosh looked capable of working toward that with the Russians, but much like WW1 and WW2, global war had conspired to ruin our fun.

 

[ClausThomsen]

The argument is should an owner be allowed to spend as much of their own money as they like on their business. I would argue yes they should, especially in an industry where you can only compete by investing shed loads of cash.

In the football industry debt is arguably far more important than losses and I'm not sure the Profit and Loss sustainability rules are actually making clubs more sustainable.

The problem is though when an owner commits millions on contracts and then decides one day that they've had enough of owning a club. The club is left with that debt and not the wantaway owner. That has caused massive problems at clubs up and down the leagues.

And if the argument is an owner should have freedom to do what they want with "their business" then it's not a million miles away from franchising clubs and relocations from area to area in the way US teams are ran. It's "their business" after all.

It's frustrating but there is a need for long term insurance against recklessness with clubs that have played massive roles in the community for over a lifetime. These are clubs upon which many local businesses, employees and often a town's economy are hugely dependent. Personally I don't think it goes far enough and should really be making new owners jump through many more hoops before coming in. Stuff like buying clubs with leveraged debt should be a massive no-no.

 

[Villa_Fan]

The problem is though when an owner commits millions on contracts and then decides one day that they've had enough of owning a club. The club is left with that debt and not the wantaway owner. That has caused massive problems at clubs up and down the leagues.

And if the argument is an owner should have freedom to do what they want with "their business" then it's not a million miles away from franchising clubs and relocations from area to area in the way US teams are ran. It's "their business" after all.

It's frustrating but there is a need for long term insurance against recklessness with clubs that have played massive roles in the community for over a lifetime. These are clubs upon which many local businesses, employees and often a town's economy are hugely dependent. Personally I don't think it goes far enough and should really be making new owners jump through many more hoops before coming in. Stuff like buying clubs with leveraged debt should be a massive no-no.

I agree. I think the principles of FFP are good and clubs should not be allowed to spend beyond their means and particularly so in the example, u give of committing to long-term contracts and then the owner decides to walk away or cut funding. If an owner wants to spend money beyond the club's financial resources they should be allowed to IF a solution to mitigate future risk is implemented e.g. the owner puts the funds required to meet the overspending into an escrow account until the expiry of the contract and if the club find themselves unable to sustain the debt then the escrow money should be given to the club. Owners should not be allowed to gamble the club's existence on future income which is high risk

 

[ToffeeTim]

The problem is though when an owner commits millions on contracts and then decides one day that they've had enough of owning a club. The club is left with that debt and not the wantaway owner. That has caused massive problems at clubs up and down the leagues.

And if the argument is an owner should have freedom to do what they want with "their business" then it's not a million miles away from franchising clubs and relocations from area to area in the way US teams are ran. It's "their business" after all.

It's frustrating but there is a need for long term insurance against recklessness with clubs that have played massive roles in the community for over a lifetime. These are clubs upon which many local businesses, employees and often a town's economy are hugely dependent. Personally I don't think it goes far enough and should really be making new owners jump through many more hoops before coming in. Stuff like buying clubs with leveraged debt should be a massive no-no.

My second point was that debt is more important than profit or loss. But the Pl sustainability rules focus on losses, not debt. I think the rules are not focusing enough on the key issue.

 

[Achilles Heel]

I agree. I think the principles of FFP are good and clubs should not be allowed to spend beyond their means and particularly so in the example, u give of committing to long-term contracts and then the owner decides to walk away or cut funding. If an owner wants to spend money beyond the club's financial resources they should be allowed to IF a solution to mitigate future risk is implemented e.g. the owner puts the funds required to meet the overspending into an escrow account until the expiry of the contract and if the club find themselves unable to sustain the debt then the escrow money should be given to the club. Owners should not be allowed to gamble the club's existence on future income which is high risk

It's a good point and argument. Trouble is the clubs with all the advantage have built their base. And reap the rewards every year. They've put rules in to make sure the most marketable clubs stay there. Man City just got in there in time. Newcastle will be very interesting....

 

[Richard Alex]

Financial fair play would be if every club in the premiership is given 250 million each
There you go
Make ends meet with that
End of
This league and UEFA is a [Poor language removed] show
Bent as f@@k

 

[Villa_Fan]

It's a good point and argument. Trouble is the clubs with all the advantage have built their base. And reap the rewards every year. They've put rules in to make sure the most marketable clubs stay there. Man City just got in there in time. Newcastle will be very interesting....

I agree that the clubs already with high turnover are now more difficult to catch but I do think something needed to be done. It is very difficult to launch a fair model of financial responsibility without benefitting the clubs that are already in a strong financial position. However, I do think fans like to blame FFP for incompetence within their own clubs. Before Villa's relegation to the Championship we spent crazy money on awful players and became a financial basketcase of our own doing. It was not FFP that caused us problems it was the management and owners at Villa that did. It is similar to what has happened at Everton in the last 5 years or so. If the money that was invested in the club was done so by a different set of people managing the club then Everton could very easily be a top 4 side today. It is not FFP that is Everton's problem, it is the management and owners. With Villa, we are still in the position of not yet knowing whether the management are competent or not, we are 'enjoying' a phase of having investment in the team and in the club but that could easily go belly up in a few years time. If it does, it will not be the fault of FFP but it will be the fault of our owners and CEO.

Newcastle will be an interesting one. They are getting away with having Saudi owners much easier than the golfers are that have joined LIV golf. I think the PL will be tough on them from an FFP perspective but they have the huge benefit of having been owned by a tight git who wouldn't open his wallet for the club which means they are starting at a base of very good financials with virtually no debt and lots of scope for investment while adhering to FFP.

 

[Villa_Fan]

Financial fair play would be if every club in the premiership is given 250 million each
There you go
Make ends meet with that
End of
This league and UEFA is a [Poor language removed] show
Bent as f@@k

If there was no financial benefit to winning or losing games I think it would remove a lot of the motivation. That sounds a little too much like a franchise system to me and a bit like what the European Super League was aiming for. Also, if a club is well managed and can generate income then why should they not be rewarded more than a poorly managed club?

 

[Mashtray]

I agree that the clubs already with high turnover are now more difficult to catch but I do think something needed to be done. It is very difficult to launch a fair model of financial responsibility without benefitting the clubs that are already in a strong financial position. However, I do think fans like to blame FFP for incompetence within their own clubs. Before Villa's relegation to the Championship we spent crazy money on awful players and became a financial basketcase of our own doing. It was not FFP that caused us problems it was the management and owners at Villa that did. It is similar to what has happened at Everton in the last 5 years or so. If the money that was invested in the club was done so by a different set of people managing the club then Everton could very easily be a top 4 side today. It is not FFP that is Everton's problem, it is the management and owners. With Villa, we are still in the position of not yet knowing whether the management or competent or not, we are 'enjoying' a phase of having investment in the team and in the club but that could easily go belly up in a few years time. If it does, it will not be the fault of FFP but it will be the fault of our owners and CEO.

Newcastle will be an interesting one. They are getting away with having Saudi owners much easier than the golfers are that have joined LIV golf. I think the PL will be tough on them from an FFP perspective but they have the huge benefit of having been owned by a tight git who wouldn't open his wallet for the club which means they are starting at a base of very good financials with virtually no debt and lots of scope for investment while adhering to FFP.

I do believe this is a super valid point.

But at the same time, I feel this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If a club, lets say villa, want to bridge the gap to top 6, they attempt to buy players that are slightly better, or completely better than what they currently have, all of a sudden then need to overspend in order to get there, thats not just picking the right or wrong players, on a deal by deal basis the club is always at a disadvantage. our clubs need to "convince" players to join us with some silly tag like a "project" or mainly, with much higher wages.

Haaland went for 51 million to city, can Aston Villa afford that? of course they can! so why isnt it a reality, because you cant compete as a brand, players have to be convinced, there is of course players that would love to step up to play for Villa, and they could be great but you are trying to reach above your means so you need to convince better players to sign, and it all comes down to wages thats the only tool you have at your disposal, so it becomes real easy to get into a mess, have a bunch of players that failed on high wages. and all of sudden bam. you stuck.


i dont know how that problem gets fixed tbh, but FFP will punish down the line for getting it wrong, we got it wrong for many years buying the outcasts of bigger sides and turns out they were outcasts for good reason, then we made terrible calls on players that were rising too

 

[brigadier]

Sheff wed was charged with concealing information that proved they was trying to gain financial advantage over the rest of the league, Those charges were dropped when it was found the scab 6 were planning a super league to gain financial advantage over the rest of the league, the whole league is bent.

 

[Villa_Fan]

Sheff wed was charged with concealing information that proved they was trying to gain financial advantage over the rest of the league, Those charges were dropped when it was found the scab 6 were planning a super league to gain financial advantage over the rest of the league, the whole league is bent.

The charges were not dropped, Sheffield Wed was deducted points for breaching FFP

 

[Goat]

Sheff wed was charged with concealing information that proved they was trying to gain financial advantage over the rest of the league, Those charges were dropped when it was found the scab 6 were planning a super league to gain financial advantage over the rest of the league, the whole league is bent.

No mate, they didnt get the charges dropped.

Sheffield Wednesday have been deducted 12 points by an independent disciplinary panel for the 2020-21 season for breaking spending rules. They breached rules by including the sale of their Hillsborough Stadium home in their 2017-18 accounts despite the ground being sold a year later.

 

[Villa_Fan]

No mate, they didnt get the charges dropped.

Sheffield Wednesday have been deducted 12 points by an independent disciplinary panel for the 2020-21 season for breaking spending rules. They breached rules by including the sale of their Hillsborough Stadium home in their 2017-18 accounts despite the ground being sold a year later.

Yes, that is what happened, they actually had the 12 point deduction reduced to 6 points on appeal but that doesn't change the fact that they were punished, just like Derby Co.

There is a certain irony to the fact that the purpose of FFP/P&S is to keep clubs spending within their means to stop them from going out of existence but the penalties for breach of FFP are so harsh they could actually accelerate the club's demise.

 

[johnjoeefc]

I find it laughable that the majority of other clubs have just allowed these rules to take place. The whole of the football pyramid has now been shaped and it will likely never change. There are 6 clubs who will always reap the rewards that none of the others will ever have a chance to taste.

Everton have gone from a team who had potential to break the monopoly to now being a team battling relegation. Man City never got restrained after their first few seasons of bad spending. In fact they got rewarded and spent more and more until they got it right and due to good timing or rather perfect timing they will be up there forever. They are even stealing our 16 year old youth top talents now as well.

I hold no hope for the future of this club at all now. The rules are too bias towards a select few. Even if we had got it right like Leicester seemed to. It would only be a matter of time until we would be forced to sell our top players and find ourselves tumbling down the league again like they are.

Isn't it going to be exciting watching us play the likes of city and Liverpool and get smashed by 3+ goals home and away for the next decade. The probability of the top 6 getting even stronger and the rest getting weaker is greater than ever with the rules how they are. They all finished in their 'rightfull' positions again last season didn't they.

As someone posted earlier its the way of this world. A select few all reap the majority while the majority all feed on scraps. Unless if the rest of the majority all come together and do something about it then it will just get worse and worse and worse.

Don't get me wrong, the club do take some blame for this. But maybe they weren't at fault for the way things have gone under Moshiri. Maybe Newcastle will suffer a similar fate with their riches. You can't attract the top players unless if you are competing in the top competitions and for trophies and the top players only want to join the top clubs. Everton got the players who all the top clubs didn't want under Moshiri and there is a reason they didn't want them.