FFP and all that.

[Bluesteel]

In some ways they can’t complain. They haven’t cut their cloth yet and the 2.5m figure last summer is a red herring given the quality of loans which won’t have been cheap. 

 

However, I do think the FFP system fails to achieve its objective. It isn’t “fair” probably why they changed the name and if the sole objective was to prevent clubs from going bust then the rules could simply require debt to be written off/made into equity if owners wish to spend freely. That would eradicate the gap with parachute  clubs and prevent meltdown.

[AwokenGiant]

BUT, politically (and economically) it is in the Prem League's interest to keep it as it is - i.e. the rich get richer - it's on a global scale. 

 

It will not change anytime soon...

Edited June 1, 2018 by AwokenGiant

[Lombardo]

FFP also allows the "toytown" clubs an ability to compete with the big boys. The gap within the league is restricted to keep things competitve, but this just extends the gap to the premiership.

I fully expect an EFL review and the 39m increasing...but not this season.

[Sonny]

Oh poor Villa got relegated and now they need to sell a player they can’t afford. This is a modern day tragedy 

[Cypriot Owl]

Villa are no more victims than any other Championship team. We have all to operate within the rules of FFP.
Ironically, it is only over the last three seasons we have been in a position to buy decent players and it hasn't done us much good, (yet).
Parachute payments should be abolished, it is reward for failure IMO, and give relegated clubs an unfair advantage.
Again IMO, if a club can prove it has the money they should be allowed to buy players without restrictions

 

[theowlsman]

Mardy arses, their situation isn’t any different to that faced by many clubs before them.

 

Hope they enjoy League 1 next, then forever trying to return to the Premier League.

 

That’s life I’m afraid Villa. Nobody is owed anything in football. Your name counts for nowt. 

[Ethel The Tree]

8 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

Finishing 13th in the first season inspired the determination to recruit a player of Terry's stature and experience but, in reality, times are hard. Steve Bruce, the manager, spent only £2.5m last summer, while raising £18m in player sales.

 

This suggests Villa reached the play-off final on a shoestring budget, with Bruce having one hand tied behind his back

It says nothing of the fortunes spent on stockpiling players the previous season, or the cost of bringing in such high-profile loans and free agents last time around

 

Rather than show a trading profit I'm fairly sure their investment in recruitment and wages would've eclipsed all other competition in the Championship

Which might also explain why Bruce always seemed to be two defeats away from the sack

 

 

 

[Big Jack]

 Gut feeling is I cant see Bruce staying there much longer either.

[striker]

FFP or whatever it is called seems a necessary evil, but do think the £39m needs reviewing and increasing, particularly as inflation surrounding fees and players wages continues to rise disproportionately.

 

Parachute payments are another matter, I understand  their rationale but creates uneven competition and gives relegated teams an unfair advantage, which is a root contributor to inflating fees and wages paid in the championship.

 

I do think a good percentage of parachute payments should be ring fenced to protect the hundreds of non football playing staff who lose their jobs though.

 

Have no sympathy for Villa, but do think a review of FFP is needed.

 

 

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

Still don't get FFP (Sustain & Profitability these days?) concerns.

 

You have two choices.

 

1. You overspend, assemble a good squad which increases your chances of promotion, and you get a transfer embargo if you don't go up. - but you have already assembled a capable squad to challange.

 

2. You spend what you're permitted to do, you assemble an ok squad which can't compete with those overspending and reduced your chance of promotion, and you don't get a transfer embargo - but instead you have a self-imposed transfer embargo because you're refusing to spend above what you can.

 

If your owner can afford to do so, why wouldn't you go with option 1? Of course, option 1 might also come with additional sanctions (a fine?), but again, you have a rich owner desperate to get to the Premier League with its riches and status, what impact is a fine really going to have?

[bigdan2003]

9 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

Villa shed 122 full-time staff and 539 personnel in total.

 

This bit is what really fcks me off about football. 

The poor fckers who are really affected by these things is the staff - lose their jobs because people paid 5 times more can't do their's properly. 

 

Yet the players get their handsome wage still. 

[Quist]

I would describe article as a misguided moan.

There is something wrong with FFP rules that is clear but Villa have had parchute payments and opportunity to get out of mess they were in. Think problem is more tod do with allowing Championship clubs to put investment levels into club which are at a similar level to parachute payments of teams.

Hate to say it but they have done similar to us in investing money in wrong type of players, terry at 37 looked like an old centre half in play off final and was out of position and too slow on many occasions. Jedinak at 33, Whelan at 34, are both at end of careers and have limited effectiveness, in Whelan is only a shodow of former self very slow and lacking legs. Jedinak still does job when fit but has long periods out of action. None of these would have been on average wages so day to day costs would have been high. Thus decisions made in Championship have not been much better than they were in premiership. Bruce who hads excellent record at getting teams out of league went for a much older squad than he has used previously to get teams out of league and it did not work.

 

[Sham67]

Bigger picture here people.  We look like being held back by FFP.  Owners should be allowed to invest as much as they want, provided it's not done via loans. 

Parachute payments should be scrapped or only allowed to cover existing contracts.   It's these that are driving the increase in Championship spending.

[wednesdaywizard]

The thing that they seem to gloss over when they cry about losing their training ground and their best player is that they've received and are receiving TENS OF MILLIONS in parachute payments from the premier league.  You could apply a similar boo hoo story for the rest of the league who haven't got that privilege and had a massive disadvantage compared to them for the past 2 seasons.  The whole system is broken and unfair.

 

It's not a harsh punishment, however, when you started the race half way in front of the field and bought an expensive squad to get you to the finish that you KNEW you wouldn't be able to afford if you failed.  This whole thing was on the cards should Villa have failed.  If i bet all my money away thinking that eventually a big return is coming and it doesn't, then at some point, I'm going to lose my house, and they're losing their assets now.

 

I'm sorry but I've no sympathy.  I haven't all season and I'm delighted that they get to have another season in the 'sh|t league' as a lot of their fans call it.  Some of them think they're going walk the league next season.  There needs to be a huge shift in mentality throughout their whole club and a realisation that they got themselves in to the trouble they're in.

[Beholder]

They had an unfair advantage, now they don't and are crying about it.

 

 

 

[Buxtongent]

The issue of parachute payments and the effect of FFP is now starting to be felt properly.  Unfortunately, as with much hasty legislation anywhere, i is flawed. Should a club manage to attract a rich owner, I can see no reason for the said owner to 'invest ' as much as he feels he can afford, provided all other considerations such as tax etc. can be met. For example, were DC be allowed to purchase and pay all the wages,taxes and expenses of, say, Christian Ronaldo,and at NO COST to the club, why should he not be allowed to do so?  .This is happening anyway in the Parachute Payments in that they are provided to defray any costs that a club who is relegated from the Premiership is subsidised by the Premiership.

In other words, why can a club owner not be allowed to spend up to the amount that the 3rd bottom relegated club receives in P.paymets, over and above the llimit of the FFP regs? 

As for Villa, why the press 'crocodile' tears? They enjoyed the Premiership riches, such as Broadcasting and Sponsorship rights, and even parachute payments, which is much more than any of the Championship teams. They are now a Championship club, and must cut their cloth in the same way any Championship club must.  

[room0035]

The whole system need a rethink from top to bottom - every contract signed should have a relegation clause so if a player is on £50,000 a week and the team is relegated they can be sold or their wages reduce to say £25,000 a week.

 

Parachute payment need scrapping completely and the money given to grass roots football.

 

Teams relegated in the first season have an in case fund that is only used if their relegation has left them in the finance poo poo such as Sunderland, Bolton in the past so they have to adhere to FFP from day one not after 3 years. This hopefully with repair the impairity of the ex premiership teams spending what they want and the Villas of this world paying players £60,000 a week.

 

Also the football league in their new sustainability legislation need to start using some of them, if teams exploit the financial situation such as Newcastle and Villa in the past prevent them from being promoted to the Premiership until their financial situation is in line with the required levels, this is one of their powers but they haven't even got the fines from QPR from 10 years ago that how useless they currently are and it has to change.

 

Stop Letting the Premier league do what they want.

 

The only other way we could go is the Nascar rule (my idea) give every team in the league a budget of say £30m they choose whether it is spent on transfer, wages, youth development - any team that over spends will not be promoted and could be automatically relegated if they have broke it to such a level it is deem excess say £50m. This mean the best run clubs and those that develop their clubs and teams should rise to the top not the ones that spend £60,000 on a crap 37 year old journeyman from Chelsea. 

[wednesdaywizard]

10 minutes ago, room0035 said:

The whole system need a rethink from top to bottom - every contract signed should have a relegation clause so if a player is on £50,000 a week and the team is relegated they can be sold or their wages reduce to say £25,000 a week.

 

 

Some teams already do and Villa did.  Interestingly (and hilariously) Micah Richards, who hasn't kicked a ball since 2015, would have been due a 100% pay rise back up to £70k a week had Villa been promoted.  He stays on £35k as it is since relegation.  Ross McCormack who is on a reported £45k/week and on loan in Australia would have been due a £1m bonus had they been promoted.

 

Course, had they been promoted it wouldn't have scratched the surface.

[oh_weds_we_love_you]

12 minutes ago, room0035 said:

The whole system need a rethink from top to bottom - every contract signed should have a relegation clause so if a player is on £50,000 a week and the team is relegated they can be sold or their wages reduce to say £25,000 a week.

 

 

Problem you have then is the teams in the bottom half of the Premier League won't be able to attract the sort of players to give them a fighting chance of staying in the league - they'll just opt to join someone else who is less likely to be in a relegation fight or play overseas.

 

Then you'll have an even bigger gap between the big Premier League clubs and the rest, making the league even less competitive.

 

FFP (P&S) should be scrapped and clubs should only be able to spend money have - or their owner is prepared to fund.

[WC1Owl]

Has anyone seen my violin? It's really really tiny.