blandy Posted August 14 Moderator Share Posted August 14 25 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: I'm not sure you realised but PSR is going away. This is the last season of it. Last but one, isn’t it? I think I read or heard something that suggested next season they’re going to run the new and current versions in parallel. May be mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 30 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: I'm not sure you realised but PSR is going away. This is the last season of it. Clubs already agreed in principle how the new financial controls will look. They will be broadly aligned with UEFA squad cost control rules. Effectively curtailing our spending even more. Nas's comments about the financial controls I think post-date that agreement - so I don't think whether it is FFP / PSR / whatever new name they give the next rules makes any difference. I thought he / we voted against them anyway? (Might be wrong - we might have voted for the principle but with lots more discussion needed on the detail). I think Nas is doing everything he can to demonstrate that none of these arbitrary rules do anything to prove or disprove how well a football club is being run and that all any of them do is unfairly inhibit competition and competitiveness. I think he's playing a good game of demonstrating compliance and playing within the rules but at the same time building up a strong case for why the rules are flawed (and potentially illegal / not legally enforcable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 29 minutes ago, blandy said: Last but one, isn’t it? I think I read or heard something that suggested next season they’re going to run the new and current versions in parallel. May be mistaken. Yes we have PSR to comply with to end 24/25 Season then Squad Cost Rule of 70% from 25/26 onwards (same as UEFA). Bad timing for us with Jack rolling off for the final PSR season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) 4 minutes ago, CVByrne said: Yes we have PSR to comply with to end 24/25 Season then Squad Cost Rule of 70% from 25/26 onwards (same as UEFA). Bad timing for us with Jack rolling off for the final PSR season. What revenues get ignored when looking at squad cost rules that make it worse than PSR? Or what costs get included that aren't in PSR? Surely if you make any more than 115m in revenue, then a 70% squad cost rules benefits you more as you could in theory lose more than the fixed 35m you'd be allowed to lose under PSR? Edited August 14 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, MrBlack said: What revenues get ignored when looking at squad cost rules that make it worse than PSR? Or what costs get included that aren't in PSR? Surely if you make any more than 115m in revenue, then a 70% squad cost rules benefits you more as you could in theory lose more than the fixed 35m you'd be allowed to lose under PSR? No revenue gets ignored, but If you look at our position as per last published accounts we were within £105m psr loss but well over 70% squad cost control threshold. If we were to adhere to 70% rule, our losses would have to be smaller than the currently allowed £105m (averaged over 3 years) Edited August 14 by Czarnikjak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 2 hours ago, allani said: Nas's comments about the financial controls I think post-date that agreement - so I don't think whether it is FFP / PSR / whatever new name they give the next rules makes any difference. I thought he / we voted against them anyway? (Might be wrong - we might have voted for the principle but with lots more discussion needed on the detail). I think Nas is doing everything he can to demonstrate that none of these arbitrary rules do anything to prove or disprove how well a football club is being run and that all any of them do is unfairly inhibit competition and competitiveness. I think he's playing a good game of demonstrating compliance and playing within the rules but at the same time building up a strong case for why the rules are flawed (and potentially illegal / not legally enforcable). Nas can demonstrate all he wants but majority rules, and there seems to be absolutely no desire amongst clubs to relax the rules and allow more spending for clubs like us. Our last proposal to increase the allowable losses was outvoted 19 to 1. Even Newcastle or Chelsda didn't vote with us. Unless he takes legal action (don't think he will) and wins, I don't think anything will change that will benefit us in a meaningful manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) So basically we need to buy low sell high - raise commercial revenues year on year and squeeze every penny from fans whilst lowering our base costs - cool If Rogers has a stellar season then he’ll be sold next summer to satisfy whatever 3 word abbreviation they concoct up next to suppress wannabes like ourselves breaking the monopoly. They don’t want Villa, Newcastle etc in the Champions League they want UTD & Chelsea, Citeh, Plop, Arsenal & Spurs year on year and will do all that they can to keep that so they get their super league. Edited August 15 by thabucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, Czarnikjak said: Nas can demonstrate all he wants but majority rules, and there seems to be absolutely no desire amongst clubs to relax the rules and allow more spending for clubs like us. Our last proposal to increase the allowable losses was outvoted 19 to 1. Even Newcastle or Chelsda didn't vote with us. Unless he takes legal action (don't think he will) and wins, I don't think anything will change that will benefit us in a meaningful manner. I think the debate is moving. I think more people are frustrated that instead of preventing rich owners from coming in and buying titles - all PSR (or whatever the rule are called at the time) is really doing is (a) preventing well run clubs from having even a chance of competing and (b) extending the gap between the Sly 6 and the rest every year. Meanwhile the rich guys just carry on regardless, spending money & just finding loopholes in the rules to exploit, blatantly ignore the rules altogether and / or blackmail the authorities into letting them off. People are getting genuinely tired of Chelsea spunking £350m every window and fudging their way through the system, Barcelona being basically bankrupt and unable to register five or six players but find a way to "cheat" some money at the last minute, Man City continue breaking records for consecutive league titles despite over 100 examples of potentially breaking the rules, Man Utd getting awarded 40x more Covid relief than anyone else, etc, etc. I think most people are less worried about say Elon Musk buying Palace, signing the best / most expensive players in the world, winning a title or two and then bankrupting the club when he got bored. The bigger issues are state ownership of clubs and the apparent ease with which certain clubs still seem to be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow. Obviously the Man City thing could change that massively either way - but I suspect most people are resigned to the fact that even if the PL do throw the kitchen sink at them, then the appeal process will drag things on for ages and in the meantime the UK government will some under political pressure to interfere (thankfully I suspect that the new government will be less likely to immediately roll-over in return for a promise of some money invested into big projects run by companies that they own or have a financial interest in - but even so money talks). West Ham got into Europe and were forced to sell their best player. Brighton the same. Villa have now done even better with the same result. Meanwhile Utd and Chelsea continue to spend £80m+ on complete flops and then just go out and do the same thing next time around without any impact. Edited August 14 by allani 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 Getting in the champions league hasn't helped at all then. So what is the point? What are we playing for? Just to be sky 6 cannon fodder? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 By the way I'm not suggesting that we just have a Wild West scenario where there are no rules and anything goes. I do think that you can put in rules that genuinely prove that the business plan being followed is sustainable and that there are measures that can be put in place to ensure that if an owner does go bankrupt that clubs are protected. There's plenty of examples outside of football where these types of schemes exist and allow businesses to be ambitious and to grow but in a way where the risk is understood and mitigated to ensure (as much as possible!) that the results are not catastrophic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 3 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said: Getting in the champions league hasn't helped at all then. So what is the point? What are we playing for? Just to be sky 6 cannon fodder? I've spoken to a few friends (non-Villa fans) who are basically saying the same thing. Villa are a well run club. They've invested wisely and bought promising young players. If you guys can finish 4th and then still have to sell key players then what is the point? How can we (insert name of their team) dream of reaching the CL and beating Real Madrid. PS - for context these aren't Gillingham fans or anything but fans of teams who will realistically expect to finish top half or very close. PPS - I also appreciate that our frustration with the Sly 6 is similar to clubs maybe in the bottom half of the Championship who will feel the same way about the disparity in the money between the PL and the rest. And I massively support that - a lot more PL money should be going into the lower leagues and non-league football. A lot more. The fact that the playoff final is nicknamed the £100m final is nuts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said: Getting in the champions league hasn't helped at all then. So what is the point? What are we playing for? Just to be sky 6 cannon fodder? It’s not about being in 1 CL, it’s about being in multiple CLs competitions. That’s when the outside investment and money comes in. Getting in once is a fluke, getting in multiple times is a safe bet to invest sponsorship money in. Villa ain’t getting shiiiit, kudos, respect, money or world elite players until we are proven winners. next goal for Villa is to be established Edited August 14 by CarryOnVilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 14 Moderator Share Posted August 14 23 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said: Getting in the champions league hasn't helped at all then. So what is the point? What are we playing for? Just to be sky 6 cannon fodder? It has helped. Whether under the current scheme, or future scheme it will increase revenue, so is a positive for FFP/PSR/CSR. Further to that, the current PSR limits losses to 105 mill over a 3 year window. Clubs voted not to increase that limit to match inflation, which is what Nas suggested, probably because the rich clubs didn't want us catching them, and the ones behind us didn't want us to pull away from them. Turkeys...Christmas..self interest ruled (and we probably only proposed it out of at least some self interest). But the PL is going to adopt the same rules as UEFA, or much closer rules. This is a good thing (or an improvement). It will mean clubs can't spend more than (say) 70% of their revenue on player costs per year (UEFA was 90%, then 80% this season, then 70% next season) and no more than (for the richest clubs) than some multiple of the poorest club's income - so maybe 400 million a year on player costs (agents fess, wages, transfer fees etc.). This means youth players and established players are treated the same in future years - the "pure profit" on youth players sold disappears. It's just "money in from sales". SO that's better, as it means the rules aren't biased towards selling our own developed players to meet the rules. And further still, if a club like Villa is in the Champs league, it likely puts up the value of players, due to the higher standard they achieve (assuming they don't flounder in it). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 2 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: No revenue gets ignored, but If you look at our position as per last published accounts we were within £105m psr loss but well over 70% squad cost control threshold. If we were to adhere to 70% rule, our losses would have to be smaller than the currently allowed £105m (averaged over 3 years) Yeah ignore me, I was thinking of the maths the wrong way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted August 14 VT Supporter Share Posted August 14 Just now, MrBlack said: Yeah ignore me, I was thinking of the maths the wrong way round. Math Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 1 minute ago, Follyfoot said: Math I'm not American. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) Wes Edens says hi btw … it’s just the Nassef Sawaris show and think it’s disrespectful to forget he’s half of the ownership group - it will be NSWE who take any action not Nas alone Edited August 14 by thabucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted August 14 VT Supporter Share Posted August 14 29 minutes ago, MrBlack said: I'm not American. Nor am I , was just being pedantic as wanted to be involved in the thread but didn’t have anything worthwhile to contribute 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 1 hour ago, blandy said: It has helped. Whether under the current scheme, or future scheme it will increase revenue, so is a positive for FFP/PSR/CSR. Further to that, the current PSR limits losses to 105 mill over a 3 year window. Clubs voted not to increase that limit to match inflation, which is what Nas suggested, probably because the rich clubs didn't want us catching them, and the ones behind us didn't want us to pull away from them. Turkeys...Christmas..self interest ruled (and we probably only proposed it out of at least some self interest). But the PL is going to adopt the same rules as UEFA, or much closer rules. This is a good thing (or an improvement). It will mean clubs can't spend more than (say) 70% of their revenue on player costs per year (UEFA was 90%, then 80% this season, then 70% next season) and no more than (for the richest clubs) than some multiple of the poorest club's income - so maybe 400 million a year on player costs (agents fess, wages, transfer fees etc.). This means youth players and established players are treated the same in future years - the "pure profit" on youth players sold disappears. It's just "money in from sales". SO that's better, as it means the rules aren't biased towards selling our own developed players to meet the rules. And further still, if a club like Villa is in the Champs league, it likely puts up the value of players, due to the higher standard they achieve (assuming they don't flounder in it). No Blandy, profit from player sales will still count towards the revenue/cost calculations (averaged from last 3 seasons). So selling youth won't stop. Also the 70% rule is more restrictive in our case than the £105m allowable loss. And final nail in the coffin, the anchoring to the multiples of the poorest club has not been voted through yet, so it might not happen at all. Overall, there's nothing in this new rules that benefit us really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted August 14 VT Supporter Share Posted August 14 As a bloke that has seen us rise from the 3rd division as a youngster, win virtually everything in 10 years and be there or there abouts until the new millennium this situation really depresses me. We knock on the door and get wiped out for daring to do so, it’s **** bollocks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts