Jump to content

Villa want Bannan


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Its not bad for a player that cost us nothing but it depends if the money disappears into the Chansiri financial black hole or is used to improve the team.

Will probably be lost in the black hole, ime sure any  signings will be loan deals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OxonOwl said:

 

No. That doesn't get round FFP/P&S

Seems to have worked for Villa,

losing 8 million a month unable to pay their tax bills,

Following their take over everything is now all financial harmony, new manager and buying new players.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, outlaw pete said:

Seems to have worked for Villa,

losing 8 million a month unable to pay their tax bills,

Following their take over everything is now all financial harmony, new manager and buying new players.

 

 

They had problems with having no money (or no money getting out of China or wherever), they didn't have trouble with FFP/P&S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the idea of getting a decent amount in for Bannan and Reach and staving off FFP.

 

I just can't shake the thought of what we essentially become without our best players...A lower-mid table side with not much chance of pushing for the play offs anytime in the near future.

 

Selling is sensible but it's not really showing immediate "aggressive intent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£10m money up front, NOT on the tick. ff out, westwood , and anybody else we can sell for a 'worthy' price, and get this ffp monkey off our back.

get a proper championship manager in, threepenny bit head, colin, type who knows the game, and doesn't need £30m+ to build a side.

start wearing the shirt with passion and pride and not just playing for the paycheck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

 

They had problems with having no money (or no money getting out of China or wherever), they didn't have trouble with FFP/P&S

So losing 8 million a month is not a problem with FFP/P&S providing you have a rich Chairman who can pay the bills out of his own pocket.. HMCR did not see it that way..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Essix Blue said:

I’d rather lose BB than Reach 

 

I'd prob agree

 

I think there's a discussion to be had about whether in the long run we'd be better off without BB 

 

The present love in for him is understandable and i like him too but  perhaps just imo I think when he plays we rely on him too much and become too predictable and easy to stifle 

 we need to increase the size of our midfield a bit and add steel as well as creativity 

if we got a fair chunk for him I would say ok 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, outlaw pete said:

So losing 8 million a month is not a problem with FFP/P&S providing you have a rich Chairman who can pay the bills out of his own pocket.. HMCR did not see it that way..

 

Losing £8m a month will catch up with you in time as far as FFP/P&S is concerned but having had parachute payments and not been out of the premier league very long, they have not yet breached FFP/P&S.

 

Having no money and not paying your tax bill, well that does annoy HMRC. The problem was that the rich chairman couldn't get his money out of his home country to pay the bills. New investors sorted that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, room0035 said:

To adhere to the FFP we need about another £5m this season everything else is a bonus so yes it can be used to buy new players just not all of it.

 

We could get a decent standard loan from the premier league to cover Bannan or we could promote from within after all thats the Jos way is it not players 19-23 years old.

Hope you're right

Let's see what the next set of accounts say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

 

Losing £8m a month will catch up with you in time as far as FFP/P&S is concerned but having had parachute payments and not been out of the premier league very long, they have not yet breached FFP/P&S.

 

Having no money and not paying your tax bill, well that does annoy HMRC. The problem was that the rich chairman couldn't get his money out of his home country to pay the bills. New investors sorted that.

 

If Villa need 8million a month transferring from China because they have no cash in the bank, then their profit and loss account will show they are trading at a loss.. The parachute payment has gone on over paid crocks,sounds familiar ! The Villa fans will  tell you who they are..

I don’t see how selling the club allows you to avoid FFP/P&S rules..

Or is there one rule for SWFC and another rule for other clubs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, outlaw pete said:

 

If Villa need 8million a month transferring from China because they have no cash in the bank, then their profit and loss account will show they are trading at a loss.. The parachute payment has gone on over paid crocks,sounds familiar ! The Villa fans will  tell you who they are..

I don’t see how selling the club allows you to avoid FFP/P&S rules..

Or is there one rule for SWFC and another rule for other clubs?

 

 

It doesn't. They haven't infringed FFP/P&S regulations yet.

 

Same rules for all. Why not go and read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, outlaw pete said:

 

If Villa need 8million a month transferring from China because they have no cash in the bank, then their profit and loss account will show they are trading at a loss.. The parachute payment has gone on over paid crocks,sounds familiar ! The Villa fans will  tell you who they are..

I don’t see how selling the club allows you to avoid FFP/P&S rules..

Or is there one rule for SWFC and another rule for other clubs?

 

 

The first thing to consider here is that FFP is over a rolling three year period. Seeing as Villa haven’t been in the championship for three seasons how can they have violated the rules? 

 

Even if you ignore that, they receive more income than they lose in outgoings, or at least they should with the huge parachute payments they still receive since exiting the premier league. 

 

If you ignore that, they sell players for vast sums that cancel out their spend. 

 

It’s not, nor ever likely to be one rule for one and another for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

Bannan is the last player we can afford to lose. 

Every 6 months the "last player we can afford to lose" changes. Forestieri, Westwood, and now Bannan.

 

I reckon Jones is next. Just can't see anyone affording his £2b weekly salary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Philb125 said:

 

The first thing to consider here is that FFP is over a rolling three year period. Seeing as Villa haven’t been in the championship for three seasons how can they have violated the rules? 

 

Even if you ignore that, they receive more income than they lose in outgoings, or at least they should with the huge parachute payments they still receive since exiting the premier league. 

 

If you ignore that, they sell players for vast sums that cancel out their spend. 

 

It’s not, nor ever likely to be one rule for one and another for us. 

Again, Villa's spend to income's 84%, ours 124%.

 

Highest anywhere.

 

And they have a £25 million offer on table for Grealish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...