The AVFC FFP / PSR / SCR thread

[calcifer]

4 minutes ago, Keener window-cleaner said:

It may be frustrating that we have owners who want to pump in more money, and not really fair that we are debt free, but can't do that. But on a general level I think it is reasonable with rules meaning that you can't spend more than you earn (or a bit more but a limit to the amount of losses). Today's fees of £100M or more and the wages being payed is just not sound imo. We have come here because of the trends of oligarchs investing laundred money, Gulf states pumping in state oil money, China giving loans to dubious businessmen of political reasons and American and other private equity funds investing in football clubs to make profit. I'm against these investment trends and I don't think it's good for football. Saudi of all states buying Newcastle and Clearlake Capital buying Chelsea was kind of the final straw. I wonder what the next trend of investment will be and dread to think what it could be.

Imo it was as exciting when we paid for example £7M for Collymore or £20M for Darren Bent, as that was a big sum at the time. The normal increase in prices and inflation will of course make prices go up. But the £200M for Neymar and the £100M transfers cannot be explained by anything else than the mentioned dirty investment trends that I don't think is sound.

With this my view is that I wouldn't unreservedly support us taking action against the PL for not being able to invest more. Instead we should fully support the cases against Man C and others. It seems like quite many clubs are restricted in their spending this summer, as they were in the January transfer window. I hope it means that the prices go down and I think that would be a good thing in the long run. I'm not comfortable with us taking side with Man C in any way in these aspects.

While I agree, the issue is the losses 105M over 3 years is not fit for purpose. Everything has gone up since it was introduced, this is why we wanted to increase it. The losses allowed should have gone up with Inflation.

This new squad cost ratio is going to be worse while we are in Europe! Isn't it something like we can only spend 70% of revenue on transfes, wages etc? Absolutely no chance as things stand without selling star players. What is our current figure 92%? So we need to see a decrease of 22% if we want to continue in Europe! 

These rules only benefit the big clubs!

So i have pretty much come to terms that we will end up having to sell Martinez or Watkins at some point. Unless we unearth a gem we can sell.

Until we are bringing in big money this is the reality. 

[Keener window-cleaner]

2 minutes ago, calcifer said:

While I agree, the issue is the losses 105M over 3 years is not fit for purpose. Everything has gone up since it was introduced, this is why we wanted to increase it. The losses allowed should have gone up with Inflation.

This new squad cost ratio is going to be worse while we are in Europe! Isn't it something like we can only spend 70% of revenue on transfes, wages etc? Absolutely no chance as things stand without selling star players. What is our current figure 92%? So we need to see a decrease of 22% if we want to continue in Europe! 

These rules only benefit the big clubs!

So i have pretty much come to terms that we will end up having to sell Martinez or Watkins at some point. Unless we unearth a gem we can sell.

Until we are bringing in big money this is the reality. 

Ah I didn't think of that thanks, it's fully reasonable that the losses allowed should follow inflation.

[Rich_H]

44 minutes ago, calcifer said:

While I agree, the issue is the losses 105M over 3 years is not fit for purpose. Everything has gone up since it was introduced, this is why we wanted to increase it. The losses allowed should have gone up with Inflation.

This new squad cost ratio is going to be worse while we are in Europe! Isn't it something like we can only spend 70% of revenue on transfes, wages etc? Absolutely no chance as things stand without selling star players. What is our current figure 92%? So we need to see a decrease of 22% if we want to continue in Europe! 

These rules only benefit the big clubs!

So i have pretty much come to terms that we will end up having to sell Martinez or Watkins at some point. Unless we unearth a gem we can sell.

Until we are bringing in big money this is the reality. 

This is why Heck has been bought in, earning the big money and targeted with raising our revenue to £400m - the only option isn’t to reduce the wage bill, the preferred choice is going to be to increase revenue through every option available. 

[CVByrne]

8 hours ago, calcifer said:

While I agree, the issue is the losses 105M over 3 years is not fit for purpose. Everything has gone up since it was introduced, this is why we wanted to increase it. The losses allowed should have gone up with Inflation.

This new squad cost ratio is going to be worse while we are in Europe! Isn't it something like we can only spend 70% of revenue on transfes, wages etc? Absolutely no chance as things stand without selling star players. What is our current figure 92%? So we need to see a decrease of 22% if we want to continue in Europe! 

These rules only benefit the big clubs!

So i have pretty much come to terms that we will end up having to sell Martinez or Watkins at some point. Unless we unearth a gem we can sell.

Until we are bringing in big money this is the reality. 

The squad cost rule isn't as bad as PSR as it only takes account of that years income and salary + amortisation not the previous 3 years, However you get to include the prorata of the previous 3 years profit on player sales. So if we sell Luiz and Duran for 100m profit this summer we get to include  20m + 40m + 100m (our last three calendar years of sales) = 180m / 3 = 60m in with our income. While only including one years of amortisation.

This is why we need to look to lower wages by moving on players on high earnings before the rule change to 70% squad cost comes in next year. 

[thunderball]

48 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The squad cost rule isn't as bad as PSR as it only takes account of that years income and salary + amortisation not the previous 3 years, However you get to include the prorata of the previous 3 years profit on player sales. So if we sell Luiz and Duran for 100m profit this summer we get to include  20m + 40m + 100m (our last three calendar years of sales) = 180m / 3 = 60m in with our income. While only including one years of amortisation.

This is why we need to look to lower wages by moving on players on high earnings before the rule change to 70% squad cost comes in next year. 

[MrBlack]

16 hours ago, MapleVilla said:

Very Chelsea-esque way of doing things

Indeed, it didn't come across but I wasn't betting entirely serious with that suggestion.  I hate the rules, but wouldn't want us effectively cheating to get around them. 

[HanoiVillan]

8 hours ago, thunderball said:

Fair play if that's you, I'm stuck at 

[MapleVilla]

7 hours ago, MrBlack said:

Indeed, it didn't come across but I wasn't betting entirely serious with that suggestion.  I hate the rules, but wouldn't want us effectively cheating to get around them. 

Oh completely agree :)

[Galway Lion]

Time to consider selling Bodymoor Heath to one of our owners other businesses.

Juventus and Chelsea are not to be trusted and will try to lowball us as the end of the month approaches. 
Sell the training ground whilst the loophole remains. If Chelsea can abuse it so can we. 
We can still sell Luiz and Duran but under our terms 

[thabucks]

12 minutes ago, Galway Lion said:

Time to consider selling Bodymoor Heath to one of our owners other businesses.

Juventus and Chelsea are not to be trusted and will try to lowball us as the end of the month approaches. 
Sell the training ground whilst the loophole remains. If Chelsea can abuse it so can we. 
We can still sell Luiz and Duran but under our terms 

Just like we abused it when we sold Villa park to our owners … But yeah makes sense to sell BMH  to ourselves 

[paul514]

22 hours ago, calcifer said:

While I agree, the issue is the losses 105M over 3 years is not fit for purpose. Everything has gone up since it was introduced, this is why we wanted to increase it. The losses allowed should have gone up with Inflation.

This new squad cost ratio is going to be worse while we are in Europe! Isn't it something like we can only spend 70% of revenue on transfes, wages etc? Absolutely no chance as things stand without selling star players. What is our current figure 92%? So we need to see a decrease of 22% if we want to continue in Europe! 

These rules only benefit the big clubs!

So i have pretty much come to terms that we will end up having to sell Martinez or Watkins at some point. Unless we unearth a gem we can sell.

Until we are bringing in big money this is the reality. 

its worth saying that the punishment by uefa is always a piddly fine, it would be the PL rules where we would get stung.

Personally I support the 70% but for wages only.

Amortisation is a joke, all they need to do is say spend what you like on players but you have to pay for the player up front, problem solved.

[OutByEaster?]

To be fair, we don't need to sell BMH to ourselves - some of our competitors have training ground sponsors and a quick deal with Big Egyptian Concrete Inc. could give us a bit of spending room.

 

[thabucks]

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

To be fair, we don't need to sell BMH to ourselves - some of our competitors have training ground sponsors and a quick deal with Big Egyptian Concrete Inc. could give us a bit of spending room.

 

Do both … 

[Follyfoot]

1 hour ago, Galway Lion said:

Time to consider selling Bodymoor Heath to one of our owners other businesses.

Juventus and Chelsea are not to be trusted and will try to lowball us as the end of the month approaches. 
Sell the training ground whilst the loophole remains. If Chelsea can abuse it so can we. 
We can still sell Luiz and Duran but under our terms 

I get the sneaky feeling we may well have done this already and are still short 

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Do both … 

That's interesting - if we sell it and then have it sponsored, would we get the money from the naming rights or would the 'company' we sell BMH to get it?

Would we be selling the land and retaining the image rights to our training ground?

I love how ridiculous PSR is.

[allani]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

That's interesting - if we sell it and then have it sponsored, would we get the money from the naming rights or would the 'company' we sell BMH to get it?

Would we be selling the land and retaining the image rights to our training ground?

I love how ridiculous PSR is.

Didn't Chelsea sell their hotel but frame the deal so that the club retains all the profits made by the hotel?

[HanoiVillan]

32 minutes ago, allani said:

Didn't Chelsea sell their hotel but frame the deal so that the club retains all the profits made by the hotel?

Something like that; think the 'new owner' pays the club a management fee or something. 

[Tomaszk]

Can we not sponsor the Doug Ellis stand. Won't miss seeing his name.

[mattyvilla]

So what would the likely penalty be ? Some of the clubs who have already had penalties seemed to blatantly carry on breaking rules. From the outside at least it looks like Villa have attempted to rectify the situation.

[andycv]

I'm assuming if we did fail to comply it would be a points deduction.