Popular Post villan-scott Posted June 7 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted June 7 Sky have deleted the article and tweets around the clubs needing to sell, so I imagine it was incorrect and someone has tapped them on the shoulder. Hopefully not as bad as what was being made out…! 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 minutes ago, villan-scott said: Sky have deleted the article and tweets around the clubs needing to sell, so I imagine it was incorrect and someone has tapped them on the shoulder. Hopefully not as bad as what was being made out…! Sounds to me like they got a call from one for their Scum 6 masters (Chelsea), and told them not to air their dirty laundry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcGrath_5 Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 5 minutes ago, villan-scott said: Sky have deleted the article and tweets around the clubs needing to sell, so I imagine it was incorrect and someone has tapped them on the shoulder. Hopefully not as bad as what was being made out…! Was it not specifically the Chelsea part though? I think they've since done an article saying that Chelsea do not have to sell etc and haven't for the other clubs mentioned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 7 Popular Post Share Posted June 7 (edited) Could we not just sell naming rights to Villa Park for a healthy fee? As I always say my ideal would be " Fortress Villa Park " via Wes Edens links. Edited June 7 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 hours ago, villan-scott said: Sky have deleted the article and tweets around the clubs needing to sell, so I imagine it was incorrect and someone has tapped them on the shoulder. Hopefully not as bad as what was being made out…! Very interesting. The wording of the article about us was ridiculously speculative to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan-scott Posted June 7 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7 2 hours ago, PaulMcGrath_5 said: Was it not specifically the Chelsea part though? I think they've since done an article saying that Chelsea do not have to sell etc and haven't for the other clubs mentioned. As far as I can see they’ve removed the original article all together. There is a new article about Chelsea not needing to sell but no mention of any of the other clubs now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Platt Posted June 7 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7 7 minutes ago, villan-scott said: As far as I can see they’ve removed the original article all together. There is a new article about Chelsea not needing to sell but no mention of any of the other clubs now. Nothing says you have to sell like getting articles pulled. We just play poker and let people guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 I dont get the issue with selling something th3 club owns. You can only do it once. In the case of hotels, if the club owns them, then they're making money off them. Selling then they lose that regular income, but get a one off boost. Long term its bad, and not a forever solution so no need to close the loophole. For us, selling bodymoor, we make a boost but then have an annual cost for whatever it is to carry on using the site. Again, I don't see an issue as it isn't a long term solution and can't be repeated. FFP will be changed before long, although I very much doubt it will be for the better because the league are useless and clubs don't seem to know what is best for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 59 minutes ago, MrBlack said: I dont get the issue with selling something th3 club owns. You can only do it once. In the case of hotels, if the club owns them, then they're making money off them. Selling then they lose that regular income, but get a one off boost. Long term its bad, and not a forever solution so no need to close the loophole. For us, selling bodymoor, we make a boost but then have an annual cost for whatever it is to carry on using the site. Again, I don't see an issue as it isn't a long term solution and can't be repeated. FFP will be changed before long, although I very much doubt it will be for the better because the league are useless and clubs don't seem to know what is best for them. It's selling something to yourself (like Chelsea did with the hotels and we did with the stadium) that Premier League wants to close the door on. Chelsea were even smarter than you think, they sold the hotels but the management of them and any profit they generate was left within the club entity. So they got one off boost without loosing the recurring income 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 18 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: It's selling something to yourself (like Chelsea did with the hotels and we did with the stadium) that Premier League wants to close the door on. Chelsea were even smarter than you think, they sold the hotels but the management of them and any profit they generate was left within the club entity. So they got one off boost without loosing the recurring income Presumably that becomes a legal issue rather than a PL one though. You can't recognise revenue that you make up. That's money laundering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted June 7 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7 3 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: Could we not just sell naming rights to Villa Park for a healthy fee? As I always say my ideal would be " Fortress Villa Park " via Wes Edens links. We could but I suppose it’s sort of selling the family silver isn’t it? Once it’s gone, it’s gone? But yeah, the Fortress Villa Park would generate some serious money… or maybe Adidas or something? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 10 hours ago, Zatman said: We are not allowed do business with Vitoria until January. Also that would be absolutely investigated Its ridiculous though isn't it? With utd and city be allowd same rules as we were not. Id atill do deals with them and use those as examples. What xouls thwy do? Case would get thrown out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 26 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Its ridiculous though isn't it? With utd and city be allowd same rules as we were not. Id atill do deals with them and use those as examples. What xouls thwy do? Case would get thrown out UEFA banned it. Can do what we want but pointless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 9 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: Could we not just sell naming rights to Villa Park for a healthy fee? As I always say my ideal would be " Fortress Villa Park " via Wes Edens links. Sounds good, but I can't understand what a hedge fund gets from spending huge sums of their own money on advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 So am I right in saying may need to tidy up our FFP this month by selling whoever then come July we can go bonkers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted June 8 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8 13 minutes ago, Frodo said: So am I right in saying may need to tidy up our FFP this month by selling whoever then come July we can go bonkers ? No-one knows 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_H Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 hour ago, Frodo said: So am I right in saying may need to tidy up our FFP this month by selling whoever then come July we can go bonkers ? Unlikely as even with the increased revenue the losses have to be in check to ensure PSR compliance next set of accounts. We need to accept that in order to bring in the sort of players that are going to improve us we either need to sell a player every season or two for a big fee or start getting some decent fees from 2 or 3 academy players a year. That will need to continue until our revenues increase significantly which we are clearly making great strides towards but can’t stop. If we get another season champions league next year hopefully heck can start negotiating a whole new set of sponsorships for stuff like official airline, insurance, connectivity, infrastructure and whatever else they can stick a sponsorship on. Going bonkers is limited to the elite unfortunately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoVillan1983 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 We have a hedge fund dude as one of our owners, and he knows how markets work... If you're a forced seller you have to take whatever price someone will give you. I cannot for the life of me imagine how a club that has shown just how well run it has been since Chinese Tony sold would put themselves into a situation where they have to sell in a very short time frame. It's absolutely lunacy. We have one of the most professional operations in the league. We wouldn't back ourselves into a corner where we have to sell a high value asset for a low price. The team knows to sell high, buy low. If a bid comes in that's way too much - player is out. Hunt for bargains - that's what we've been doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 We should just do a deal with Newcastle… We sell them Luiz for £100m and they sell us Bruno for £100m. Both clubs book the £100m revenue for this financial period and then amortise the buying cost at £20m per annum over a 5 year contract. Next year do the same in reverse. It’s essentially a season long swap, which would make both clubs FFP bulletproof. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 8 hours ago, GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS said: We should just do a deal with Newcastle… We sell them Luiz for £100m and they sell us Bruno for £100m. Both clubs book the £100m revenue for this financial period and then amortise the buying cost at £20m per annum over a 5 year contract. Next year do the same in reverse. It’s essentially a season long swap, which would make both clubs FFP bulletproof. Why not just do that then loan the players back ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts