Financial Fair Play investigation

[HalfTimeSayers]

Joined Sunday, posted only in this thread.

A ghoul feasting on folks worst fears and gambling on the worst outcome with no info or precedent.

I used ignore for the first time ever due to the absolute certainty in which guesswork was being presented as fact. My version of this thread is only 2 pages long now, most of it by @davek and I agree with all of it.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

There would be absolutely no reason for Villa's owners to agree on any restriction with the league when they acquired the club. They bought the club and they knew the rules the club needed to operate under. I love the use of a 'counter factual'. But to use other counter factuals, if the owners didn't have any money the club would have gone into administration or if Villa got a 100 point deduction because a lot of the fans are idiots they would have been relegated.

Well there would because the rules allow for a 2 Year Business Plan to show future compliance etc, Future Financial Information and Updated Owners and Directors Test covers this. Maybe it didn't in 2018, who knows.

Well there would because FFP position as inherited still applies to a club irrespective of change of owners and they would have been made aware of the position in summer 2018. Had that loophole remained forever shut a lot of clubs would have had big problems FFP wise.

If you subtract a) The increase in amortisation and b) The increase in non promotion bonus wages (excluded from FFP) from the final figure but you also subtract in the world as it should've been, the Stadium sale loophole being shut you will see a major FFP hole to 2018-19. You may also in the counterfactual add back a few million in play-off final Gate Receipts for the losing side.

The League had that loophole been rightly shut would have wanted answers as to how the gap would've been filled.

 

[Blue peter]

Ok can we crowdfund out of this? I’ll start with 50p and whatever I can sell in ours on eBay.

Theres only one man now who can solve our issues….fire up the Martin Lewis signal

 

[Walken]

I used ignore for the first time ever due to the absolute certainty in which guesswork was being presented as fact. My version of this thread is only 2 pages long now, most of it by @davek and I agree with all of it.

Haha quite the unique circumstance!

 

[Villa_Fan]

No it's more about how the process can work for those who are interested..

My two takeaways from that are that the decision or determination isn't necessarily binding the day after the accounts are received and that the word of a clubs auditors isn't the final one.

They are inherent in the process or for that matter, any process. Company A submits a report of their financial statement to any authority, be that HMRC or the football league or whoever. Simply submitting the details cannot mean that the details are true and correct because fraud and errors exist in the world, and the authority has the right to review said documents to determine if they meet their assessment requirements

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

They are inherent in the process or for that matter, any process. Company A submits a report of their financial statement to any authority, be that HMRC or the football league or whoever. Simply submitting the details cannot mean that the details are true and correct because fraud and errors exist in the world, and the authority has the right to review said documents to determine if they meet their assessment requirements

Thank you. You've put it better!

 

[Blue peter]

Sky sports reckon it was selling richarlison thats made the league look at us, how can that be right? How else are you meant to balance the books if you cant sell players!

Maybe there was a quid pro quo in the two transfers that took place with Richarlison going one way but earlier with Adele Alli coming to us, is it possible they thought Richardson was very cheap, and it could have been an off set from the real value of the Alli coming to us?

 

[davek]

There's a particular whiff from those trying to set the scene where we are guilty and should be punished.

Surely at this moment we are presumed innocent and we should be vigorously defending ourselves against those who would suggest otherwise.

The only outcome I want to see is a complete exoneration from any wrongdoing. Or maybe 10 lashes from cat o' nine tails for each of the board.

The PL told everyone in the game we were alright. That's all I know.

Why on earth any other club in future would try and work with them if they end up punished for doing so I dont know.

Perhaps they'll inform the commission why they're facing both ways on this?

 

[Villa_Fan]

Well there would because the rules allow for a 2 Year Business Plan to show future compliance etc, Future Financial Information and Updated Owners and Directors Test covers this. Maybe it didn't in 2018, who knows.

Well there would because FFP position as inherited still applies to a club irrespective of change of owners and they would have been made aware of the position in summer 2018. Had that loophole remained forever shut a lot of clubs would have had big problems FFP wise.

If you subtract a) The increase in amortisation and b) The increase in non promotion bonus wages (excluded from FFP) from the final figure but you also subtract in the world as it should've been, the Stadium sale loophole being shut you will see a major FFP hole to 2018-19. You may also in the counterfactual add back a few million in play-off final Gate Receipts for the losing side.

The League had that loophole been rightly shut would have wanted answers as to how the gap would've been filled.

I think you are missing the point that the ability to sell the ground to your owners was allowed by the league. Speculating what would have happened if the rules changed is nonsensical. When an FFP rule is to be changed they need to give clubs advance notice to give the club time to adjust their strategy to adhere to the new ruling. If avenues weren't open to the club to increase revenue they would most likely have made different decisions with regard to the expenditure. You are getting close to 'if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle' type discussion.

 

[Villa_Fan]

Sky sports reckon it was selling richarlison thats made the league look at us, how can that be right? How else are you meant to balance the books if you cant sell players!

Could it be that the FA were not aware of how much of a hole EFC had got themselves into? Selling Richy on the last day of the financial year for what many considered to be lower than his market value screams that we have financial problems we are trying to address which may have alerted someone in the FA. My own opinion is that the threat of legal proceedings from Burnley and Leeds is what stirred this hornets nest as the PL will want to arse cover

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think you are missing the point that the ability to sell the ground to your owners was allowed by the league. Speculating what would have happened if the rules changed is nonsensical. When an FFP rule is to be changed they need to give clubs advance notice to give the club time to adjust their strategy to adhere to the new ruling. If avenues weren't open to the club to increase revenue they would most likely have made different decisions with regard to the expenditure. You are getting close to 'if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle' type discussion.

Well the fact that they opened in the first place is weird. Two reasons why:

1) UEFA rules never permitted it as a permissible. You could do it but it just wouldn't count towards FFP.
2) The Football League one year rule predating this did not permit it either.

Therefore the logical solution is transfer the new rules but don't open the loophole. There is a suspicion that someone in the Football League messed up the implementation basically.

Besides, looking at it in an Aston Villa only context too I've said multiple clubs woukd have been in serious bother without it.

Derby e.g. would have failed by approaching £25m. With an 8 figure hole the following year and the year after that.

Reading would have failed in 2019, as well as in actual terms, maybe 2018.

Sheffield Wednesday would have failed 2018 and 2019. Birmingham 2019 also and maybe beyond in either case.

Even less expenditure would have seen a hole...fortunately Aston Villa list their categories of FFP allowances in the accounts so it's easy to work back.

You also seem to be disregarding Future Financial Information requirements for some reason.

 

[bluejohn66]

There's a particular whiff from those trying to set the scene where we are guilty and should be punished.

Surely at this moment we are presumed innocent and we should be vigorously defending ourselves against those who would suggest otherwise.

The only outcome I want to see is a complete exoneration from any wrongdoing. Or maybe 10 lashes from cat o' nine tails for each of the board.

Now ya Talking

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Could it be that the FA were not aware of how much of a hole EFC had got themselves into? Selling Richy on the last day of the financial year for what many considered to be lower than his market value screams that we have financial problems we are trying to address which may have alerted someone in the FA. My own opinion is that the threat of legal proceedings from Burnley and Leeds is what stirred this hornets nest as the PL will want to arse cover

I think the only potential issue that could arise from the Richy transfer is whether it was completed in time to be in the 21/22 books. It could be we have put the sale amount in for the 30th June to balance the books but the league believe it wasn't completed til 1st July.

I don't think 50m + addons was particularly below market value tbh, and given his lack of impact there many Spurs fans might think they overpaid. If he was worth much more than 50m someone else would've bid 51.

 

[Jacko93]

Gambling sponsorship is eliminated in an ideal world, but the practical benefits of this will be close to zero for the people who are catastrophically impacted by the addiction.

Once again, its just taking the easy option and going for the low-hanging fruit.

If they stopped for a moment first to ask why the majority of clubs outside the elite have been dependent on gambling sponsorship for years, but no, that would be too much like hard work.

The whole "governance" model aims to promote and create financial sustainability when it does nothing other than have the opposite effect.

Let's tell these clubs that gambling sponsorship is no longer an option, but do nothing to help create a sponsorship model that fosters the sustainability they claim to care about.

TBF, if they were really serious, they would have league sanctioned sponsorship, 20 per year who pay the league to be in the group. They then bid between themselves at auction for which club shirt they will be placed on. The money raised at auction should go directly back in to grassroots football, with the clubs agreeing a charity for an equal share of the initial entrance fee paid to each year.

Kits get changed every year by all (I think) clubs in the league anyway.

If clubs still want to sponsor training grounds etc, it can only be up to a set price. That woud also stop the likes of city with their fake sponsorships.

 

[Paul Rideout]

There's a particular whiff from those trying to set the scene where we are guilty and should be punished.

Surely at this moment we are presumed innocent and we should be vigorously defending ourselves against those who would suggest otherwise.

The only outcome I want to see is a complete exoneration from any wrongdoing. Or maybe 10 lashes from cat o' nine tails for each of the board.

or headlocks all around at board level, not just the females.