The AVFC FFP thread

[grobs]

I think if they were to try and sanction us for this lawyers would have easy pickings with all the past transfers from the big 6. I also think the only frauds here are the people who run this farce of a league 

[thabucks]

McGrath I hope we sue them for restriction of trade - also hope citeh annihilate them in court - **** the premier league who’ve proven time and time again it’s not fit for purpose. 

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, CarryOnVilla said:

there’s nothing to worry about. How are they going to prove these transfers were done in bad faith? 
 

it’s not like their going to find any texts from monchi saying “go on add another 5m on that, to clear our debts” 

Ermmm. Well I hope not anyway. 

[Villa_Vids]

[ThunderPower_14]

We didn't want to sell all of our talented kids, we've been forced to because of arbitrary rules. 

They can't set rules and then try to punish clubs for following them.

This system that makes player movement essential simply isn't fit for purpose. 

I guess we'll lawyer up if they push it. 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, Aston_Villan4 said:

They’re trying to screw us over.

 

 

No they’re not.  A journalist has written a story that the PL legal team sent an email. “Ooh , scary, an e mail”.

The article goes on to explain a load of “rules” stuff which does not apply to the deals involving Villa

But I can see why a badly worded and badly written article has given people the scaries, if they don’t read it fully.

Quote

fair market value (FMV) rules… apply … to associated party transactions. Those govern deals for players or commercial contracts between a Premier League club and another entity who may share the same ownership. Those rules are intended to stop the false inflation of commercial deals, and also to stop clubs in a multi-club ownership group trading players on deals that do not reflect accurate prices.‌

 

[Teale's 'tache]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

No they’re not.  A journalist has written a story that the PL legal team sent an email. “Ooh , scary, an e mail”.

The article goes on to explain a load of “rules” stuff which does not apply to the deals involving Villa

But I can see why a badly worded and badly written article has given people the scaries, if they don’t read it fully.

 

Is it badly worded if the intent is to generate outrage and attract more clicks? 

That's just modern journalism, unfortunately.

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, Teale's 'tache said:

Is it badly worded if the intent is to generate outrage and attract more clicks? 

That's just modern journalism, unfortunately.

I guess that’s the intent, but it is badly written, too. Grammar is poor (lack of sub-editing).  And you’re right, modern journalism in a nutshell.

[The_Steve]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

No they’re not.  A journalist has written a story that the PL legal team sent an email. “Ooh , scary, an e mail”.

The article goes on to explain a load of “rules” stuff which does not apply to the deals involving Villa

But I can see why a badly worded and badly written article has given people the scaries, if they don’t read it fully.

 

That wasn’t my reading of it. They would take the FMV rules usually reserved for concerns about deals between parties that might have same ownership and apply them to all clubs if they believe transfers haven’t been done at “arms length” and in good faith. 

“The Premier League’s director of governance Jamie Herbert has warned clubs that his department is looking for “issues of concern” around whether deals represent good faith “arm’s length” transactions over £1 million. It has the power to request from clubs details on how the negotiations took place, including correspondence externally and internally and any other documentation.

 

If the league decides that the transfer was not conducted at arm’s length it can then impose fair market value (FMV) rules.”

 

https://archive.is/9VnQy

 

The operative word is “imposed”. Meaning they will take rules designed for other things they have grounds to impose it unilaterally. 

 

[The_Steve]

The BBC coverage is clearer. And they stress that no clubs have breached rules.

In the letter - which has been seen by BBC Sport - clubs are warned by the league’s director of governance that if it identifies "a scenario where a selling club has received an inflated transfer fee for a player in a transaction not considered to be conducted at arm's length, the selling club would be required to return the amount in excess of fair market value back to the buying club.”

Clubs are also reminded that they could also be “requested to provide information and evidence to assist determination of whether the transaction should be considered as being conducted at arm's length”
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4nge0l7e1po

It would be ridiculous to scrutinise Tim’s sale for example and for the league to arbitrarily tell Everton they overpaid by £5m - and they must return that portion to us. It’s a slippery slope.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

The operative word is “imposed”. Meaning they will take rules designed for other things they have grounds to impose it unilaterally.

They can’t do that. If  the thrust is that (say) Villa and Chelsea might have “colluded” to help each other out, then the rules allow them to demand emails etc to establish whether collusion did, in fact, take place. But as I read things, the FMV aspect is not something the rules allow to be measured against deals between unrelated clubs. That is specific to related clubs (shared ownership). As has been posted previously in this and the general FFP thread, there are a wealth of precedents for transfers of home grown players for comparable fees and further to that any negotiation will have each party seeking something they want, so collusion is essentially impossible to prove. And the PL can do nothing about it unless they change the rules, as written.

[Demitri_C]

Just sounds like they are doing it to make it look like they are doing something.  But how do you prove market value? Thats a grey area and why nothing will happen

[The_Steve]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

They can’t do that. If  the thrust is that (say) Villa and Chelsea might have “colluded” to help each other out, then the rules allow them to demand emails etc to establish whether collusion did, in fact, take place. But as I read things, the FMV aspect is not something the rules allow to be measured against deals between unrelated clubs. That is specific to related clubs (shared ownership). As has been posted previously in this and the general FFP thread, there are a wealth of precedents for transfers of home grown players for comparable fees and further to that any negotiation will have each party seeking something they want, so collusion is essentially impossible to prove. And the PL can do nothing about it unless they change the rules, as written.

But the BBC article makes clear that they would given they’ve worded it. It’s based off of the same email. 

In the letter - which has been seen by BBC Sport - clubs are warned by the league’s director of governance that if it identifies "a scenario where a selling club has received an inflated transfer fee for a player in a transaction not considered to be conducted at arm's length, the selling club would be required to return the amount in excess of fair market value back to the buying club.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4nge0l7e1po 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, The_Steve said:

But the BBC article makes clear that they would given they’ve worded it. It’s based off of the same email. 

In the letter - which has been seen by BBC Sport - clubs are warned by the league’s director of governance that if it identifies "a scenario where a selling club has received an inflated transfer fee for a player in a transaction not considered to be conducted at arm's length, the selling club would be required to return the amount in excess of fair market value back to the buying club.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4nge0l7e1po 

You can (if you're a masochist) read the actual rules here on this pdf

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf

The relevant parts are Appendix 19 and the section on Associated party transactions E55 to E76.

But to summarise, the rules are written specifically for associated party transactions (i.e. between related clubs), with the caveat that the PL can have a look at other stuff to see if its somehow "not at arms length". I believe the intent of that is to address a hypothetical situation where (say) Man City want to move player A from their New York club to Manchester, but they don't do it directly, they do it via selling player A to [whoever - a club in Portugal say] for a low (or high) fee and then that club in Portugal sells player A to Manchester shortly after, also for a low (or high) fee. So there's no direct "related party" transfer, but there is a non "Arms length" deal. Now you could (validly) say, OK, maybe that's the reason, but there's nothing to stop them considering other deals, like (say) the ones between Everton and Villa, or Chelsea and Villa, but the "not Arms length" stuff is essentially impossible to prove, given that the clubs are in direct competition with each other. Then there's the Fair value stuff, which again, has been written about on here loads. There are gazillions of precedents that the fees (reported) are not either above or below a "fair" threshold, and the rules basically say "it's up to the club(s) to justify the fee, and if we disagree, there's a database of all transfer fees paid, and that database can be used as evidence of fairness". Given that (I believe) this stuff has never, ever, been tested or used before on or against any club, and given the rules were intended to cover examples like the hypothetical scenario I outlined, I see it as a heck of an overstretch to get remotely concerned about.

The letter has probably been sent to pacify some moaning club seeking to gain an advantage over some other clubs by "protesting" to the PL, and the PL just sending the email to say "careful now" to look like they're taking the complaining club's complaint seriously. But basically, I don't read any of it as passing the "(not) arms length" block, like I said. The deals we've made (by definition) with Everton and Chelsea are "mutually acceptable" (or they wouldn't have happened), as is the case with all transfers.

The rules are lagging the reality, and indeed forcing, perhaps, the deals to be made to meet PSR - and that's another thing to take into account. Rules say "you must meet PSR" and they also imply "you need to sell home grown players like Tim to meet PSR".  So when Tim gets sold, they can't say "against the rules, you're fiddling the books by selling him to a direct rival for a fee they're willingly agreeing to, when they know you have PSR issues to address". 

IMO it's just noise and a non-story.

[The_Steve]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

You can (if you're a masochist) read the actual rules here on this pdf

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf

The relevant parts are Appendix 19 and the section on Associated party transactions E55 to E76.

But to summarise, the rules are written specifically for associated party transactions (i.e. between related clubs), with the caveat that the PL can have a look at other stuff to see if its somehow "not at arms length". I believe the intent of that is to address a hypothetical situation where (say) Man City want to move player A from their New York club to Manchester, but they don't do it directly, they do it via selling player A to [whoever - a club in Portugal say] for a low fee and then that club in Portugal sells player A to Manchester shortly after, also for a low fee. So there's no direct "related party" transfer, but there is a non "Arms length" deal. Now you could (validly) say, OK, maybe that's the reason, but there's nothing to stop them considering other deals, like (say) the ones between Everton and Villa, or Chelsea and Villa, but the "not Arms length" stuff is essentially impossible to prove, given that the clubs are in direct competition with each other. Then there's the Fair value stuff, which again, has been written about on here loads. There are gazillions of precedents that the fees (reported) are not either above or below a "fair" threshold, and the rules basically say "it's up to the club(s) to justify the fee, and if we disagree, there's a database of all transfer fees paid, and that database can be used as evidence of fairness. Given that (I believe) this stuff has never, ever, been tested or used before on or against any club, and given the rules were intended to cover examples like the hypothetical scenario I outlined, I see it as a heck of an overstretch to get remotely concerned about.

The letter has probably been sent to pacify some moaning club seeking to gain an advantage over some other clubs by "protesting" to the PL, and the PL just sending the email to say "careful now" to look like they're taking the complaining club's complaint seriously. But basically, I don't read any of it as passing the "(not) arms length" block, like I said. The deals we've made (by definition) with Everton and Chelsea are "mutually acceptable" (or they wouldn't have happened), as is the case with all transfers.

The rules are lagging the reality, and indeed forcing, perhaps, the deals to be made to meet PSR - and that's another thing to take into account. Rules say "you must meet PSR" and they also imply "you need to sell home grown players like Tim to meet PSR".  So when Tim gets sold, they can't say "against the rules, you're fiddling the books by selling him to a direct rival for a fee they're willingly agreeing to, when they know you have PSR issues to address". 

IMO it's just noise and a non-story.

Appreciate your work on this Blandy. I know we might disagree on some parts, but I appreciate the efforts to cut through the noise. Will have a read of the rules over lunch. Thanks for the link. 

[Follyfoot]

16 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Appreciate your work on this Blandy. I know we might disagree on some parts, but I appreciate the efforts to cut through the noise. Will have a read of the rules over lunch. Thanks for the link. 

can you or @blandy give a basic interpretation when you have in words you might describe it to a five year old  

[PaulMcGrath_5]

Just now, Follyfoot said:

can you or @blandy give a basic interpretation when you have in words you might describe it to a five year old  

The cat sat on the mat.

[Follyfoot]

Just now, PaulMcGrath_5 said:

The cat sat on the mat.

who is the cat ? us and the mat is the PL? 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

can you or @blandy give a basic interpretation when you have in words you might describe it to a five year old  

It'll be OK, darling

[Follyfoot]

Just now, blandy said:

It'll be OK, darling

that's all I wanted to hear