2023/24 Lewis Dobbin

[Tony’s Carp]

It would increase the price for any other player we were be looking to buy if were to buy an inexperienced player for £30m

You would also have to explain to the player and his agent that while you're paying 30m for the player you won't be paying them the wages 30m players get. There's only so far you can rinse something like this.

 

[Yarrgh]

Imagine he scores 15 goals for Villa next season.

As long as none of them are against us, I'd be seriously impressed

 

[toffee66]

On the interest dispute FWIW I have spoken to an audit and a compliance partner at PWC and Deloitte (I qualified with both moons ago). Neither think the PL has a particularly strong argument having looked at our accounts because:

1. A change in accounting policy due to a material change in circumstances is best practice - they would have criticised us if we had not done it
2. Our cash flow statements support the argument that the majority of our increase in debt is due to stadium costs though there is some estimation/subjectivity
3. Some interest attributable to debt relating to football operations has been charged to the P&L

The PL could dispute the specific capital/operational split made in points 2 and 3 above but that would require second-guessing auditor calculations (with less detailed information than the auditors had access to). That is a level of intrusiveness that my former colleagues found almost insulting but maybe the PL is tone-deaf enough to try.

The PL might not find Deloitte, their auditor, that encouraging as auditors have generally been very reluctant to open up the can of worms that would be regulators feeling free to dispute audited accounts without evidence of fraud. That is a big line to cross.

 

[pfim]

On the interest dispute FWIW I have spoken to an audit and a compliance partner at PWC and Deloitte (I qualified with both moons ago). Neither think the PL has a particularly strong argument having looked at our accounts because:

1. A change in accounting policy due to a material change in circumstances is best practice - they would have criticised us if we had not done it
2. Our cash flow statements support the argument that the majority of our increase in debt is due to stadium costs though there is some estimation/subjectivity
3. Some interest attributable to debt relating to football operations has been charged to the P&L

The PL could dispute the specific capital/operational split made in points 2 and 3 above but that would require second-guessing auditor calculations (with less detailed information than the auditors had access to). That is a level of intrusiveness that my former colleagues found almost insulting but maybe the PL is tone-deaf enough to try.

The PL might not find Deloitte, their auditor, that encouraging as auditors have generally been very reluctant to open up the can of worms that would be regulators feeling free to dispute audited accounts without evidence of fraud. That is a big line to cross.

Have they reviewed the debt agreements with the creditors? Have those changed since the initial charges?

 

[blueblue]

He definitely has pace. Was lightning compared to Simms.

You should have stopped after the first sentence.

 

[blueblue]

This is where PSR is horseshite, Dobbin is the kind of player we should be keeping another year or two and we decide whether to keep him in our first team squad or loan him out for a year or so to see if he makes it, not to have to sell him to satisfy the numbers game and letting other teams then benefit from either having a first team player or selling for a bigger fee

I think if we want to sign him back next summer it may be possible.

 

[Zatara]

People saying Dobbin has pace, he looked like he was running in treacle like Magaye Gueye the few times I saw him in the first team. Not one I’m scared of coming back to bite us, and think we’re getting the better end of the deal with Tim coming here. Wish him all the best though.

Dobbin? Running in treacle? I thought he looked quick especially in that game against Semedo.

Really? With Ramsey, Diaby, Buendia, Bailey, Rogers already established and Kellyman coming through? It's pretty obvious why they've done this deal.

How many of those players do they need

Thats 6 attacking players...surely we should be trying for Rogers or Kellyman as they will want ready to go players?

Dobbin has the same amount of premier league goals as Chukwuemeka did last season and Chelsea signed him from Villa for around 20 mil

so i think we can easily justify 10 mil

Amazing to think that 12months ago, Dobbin had just come back from Derby, Chukwuemeka had 12 months stalled at Chelsea and Iroegbunam had a whole season at QPR with good reports.

Now were gettting Iroegbunam for £9mil when he'd have either been not for sale or rated at £20mil+ a year ago.

Of the three of them, and i like his potential, id say Dobbin is probably the 3rd choice you'd go for.

I'm really not seeing it. They're getting Illing Jr as well. He's going to be on loan next season and probably the one after that

This is the player I wanted us to bring in this summer. Low cost, rapid, good experience and high potential.

As i wrote above...Rogers or Kellyman could be on the table if we wanted to bring in more Villa players. Theyre overstocked.

Genuine question: why aren’t we buying/selling for £30m?

Others can and have explained about the PSR calculations each year.

But another thing is, if we loaned him out this coming season to QPR or another championship side. Lets say he did better than his last season in that league.

He'd still be 21 and perhaps we sell for £9mil-15mil giving us a second PSR improvement. If we signed at £30mil we take a massive loss.

 

[Titus Bramble]

If this sale allows us to 'get around' PSR rules and put us in a position to sell the likes of Onana and Branthwaite (though, hopefully not this summer) on our terms then I'm all for it.

 

[knowing your history]

Why would Villa sell Rogers, he was great for them end of the season.

The sort this club used to be expert at picking up as they signed him from Boro for about 12m.

Dobbin would be just a flip signing for them, he'll be on loan in the championship within six months.

Let's not forget the only experience he had before his cameos was a season in league 1 so he hasn't had the loans that Simms had so big ask to step up straight from league 1 to making a serious impact in premier league.

 

[JimmyK]

Why would Villa sell Rogers, he was great for them end of the season.

The sort this club used to be expert at picking up as they signed him from Boro for about 12m.

Dobbin would be just a flip signing for them, he'll be on loan in the championship within six months.

Let's not forget the only experience he had before his cameos was a season in league 1 so he hasn't had the loans that Simms had so big ask to step up straight from league 1 to making a serious impact in premier league.

Rogers had moved on a free 6 months earlier so it wasn't such an amazing piece of business.

 

[Neiler]

On the interest dispute FWIW I have spoken to an audit and a compliance partner at PWC and Deloitte (I qualified with both moons ago). Neither think the PL has a particularly strong argument having looked at our accounts because:

1. A change in accounting policy due to a material change in circumstances is best practice - they would have criticised us if we had not done it
2. Our cash flow statements support the argument that the majority of our increase in debt is due to stadium costs though there is some estimation/subjectivity
3. Some interest attributable to debt relating to football operations has been charged to the P&L

The PL could dispute the specific capital/operational split made in points 2 and 3 above but that would require second-guessing auditor calculations (with less detailed information than the auditors had access to). That is a level of intrusiveness that my former colleagues found almost insulting but maybe the PL is tone-deaf enough to try.

The PL might not find Deloitte, their auditor, that encouraging as auditors have generally been very reluctant to open up the can of worms that would be regulators feeling free to dispute audited accounts without evidence of fraud. That is a big line to cross.

Have a feeling this charge may whither on the vine.

 

[gonetomorrow]

He never got much of a chance.

 

[toffee66]

Have they reviewed the debt agreements with the creditors? Have those changed since the initial charges?

I don’t know but they don’t actually have to change the accounting treatment because you can rely on what used to be the simple ‘true and fair’ override (but is now more verbose/complex). Effectively if the substance of the cash flows conflicts with the legal form of the contracts you can, with auditor approval, follow the substance.

This is what auditors get paid to judge. The PL did not like the change but frankly it is not that unusual to see shifts in accounting policy like. We made almost exactly the same change at a major FTSE 100 in 2017 when we decided to build and own two factories and two regional logistics centres at the same time as part of a big expansion, rather than leasing, maxing out our existing syndicated facilities to pay for them before we eventually put in place specialist construction finance.

If it was me I would definitely have changed the contracts if the lenders were willing but with Everton

 

[pfim]

I don’t know but they don’t actually have to change the accounting treatment because you can rely on what used to be the simple ‘true and fair’ override (but is now more verbose/complex). Effectively if the substance of the cash flows conflicts with the legal form of the contracts you can, with auditor approval, follow the substance.

This is what auditors get paid to judge. The PL did not like the change but frankly it is not that unusual to see shifts in accounting policy like. We made almost exactly the same change at a major FTSE 100 in 2017 when we decided to build and own two factories and two regional logistics centres at the same time as part of a big expansion, rather than leasing, maxing out our existing syndicated facilities to pay for them before we eventually put in place specialist construction finance.

If it was me I would definitely have changed the contracts if the lenders were willing but with Everton

I get that, but I don't believe there's anything in the PSR rules that state the league follows the auditor's opinion. The PSR calculation is obviously a non-GAAP number.

On the one hand, logically most if not all of that money went to the stadium. Or at the very least you make the argument that cash is fungible. But the IP has already ruled against us in that respect and specifically pointed out the language in the loan agreements.

 

[CahillsCornerFlag]

The PSR dodging toffees doing bits, all the best Lewis.