Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Stifler]

48 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Uefa

 

They are a joke. Let's see what punishment they have for Chelsea who they've breached before over spending. 

Chelsea will get the ‘benefit of the doubt’ for being the first team to do it and not realising that it’s not in the rules.

Aston Villa will get a fine to start showing that they clamping down on it.

Anyone else after could face more serious consequences.

If you had bought a club for £300m, put in another £200m, with the aim of building a £300m training complex, and a stadium costing anything from £2bn-£4bn all to get them to be one of the best teams in the world, would you risk it all for a small (the grand scheme of things) PSR boost where falling foul of the rules could lead to you missing out on Europe and missing out on your chance to break into the ‘elite’ clubs?

[r0cafella]

Just now, Stifler said:

Chelsea will get the ‘benefit of the doubt’ for being the first team to do it and not realising that it’s not in the rules.

Aston Villa will get a fine to start showing that they clamping down on it.

Anyone else after could face more serious consequences.

If you had bought a club for £300m, put in another £200m, with the aim of building a £300m training complex, and a stadium costing anything from £2bn-£4bn all to get them to be one of the best teams in the world, would you risk it all for a small (the grand scheme of things) PSR boost where falling foul of the rules could lead to you missing out on Europe and missing out on your chance to break into the ‘elite’ clubs?

Stif, what are you talking about?

[Sibierski]

Didn’t realise Villa losses were so huge. Doesn’t feel sustainable at all their model moving forward, can sell women’s team for a short term boost to help with PSR but the losses are still going to be coming thick and fast.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Sibierski said:

Didn’t realise Villa losses were so huge. Doesn’t feel sustainable at all their model moving forward, can sell women’s team for a short term boost to help with PSR but the losses are still going to be coming thick and fast.

Do you mean in PSR terms? If so that depends right especially if they continue with the rolling cycle as it is now.

 

 

Squad cost however will kill both us and them. 

[The College Dropout]

They are owned by a very rich man in terms of real losses. 
 

For PSR success on the pitch  is really what drives revenues. Thats Villa’s goal. 

[STM]

Nothing will change until the fans kick off about this. The clubs cant be trusted to make fair moral decisions that my cost them.

[gbandit]

Fans aren’t going to kick off about shit though. They either back this and want their owners to be corrupt or they’ll walk away from the game. It’s a complete farce and genuinely makes me want to stop financially supporting it

[mighty__mag]

I think if Villa wish to proceed with selling their wsl team to themselves, they'll do it with no issues, the Premier league will do nothing.

 

It's times like these I wish we'd start taking the piss a bit.

 

Having to sell Minteh and Anderson seems mental to try and play by the rules while Chelsea, Man City, Villa seemingly don't care and explore alternative exploits.

[Monters]

I think it will be interesting to see the value Villa place on the women's team should they sell, obviously Chelsea are the dominant side and have been for a good while so you would expect them to be worth more but a big portion of the value is a punt \ expectation of revenues in the future when or if the WSL becomes a lot more viable.  If that is the case then the values should be similar and even us selling a non WSL team would be able to bank \ claim similar amounts, however I do believe this can only be done once so if they do under value compared to real levels of income in the future then they will have short changed themselves.

Obviously if you are using as a short term hack then the short changing doesn't matter.  

[Dr.Spaceman]

4 hours ago, Stifler said:

You are forgetting that whilst the Premier League allows these deals, UEFA does not.

 

Aye but all UEFA can do is issue a fine. If you have billions but are only able to spend millions, a few thousand pounds isn't going to deter you.

 

I suppose Juventus got their ban didn't they, but Man City's was overturned. I assume Juventus hired the wrong lawyers.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Dr.Spaceman

[Sibierski]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

They are owned by a very rich man in terms of real losses. 
 

For PSR success on the pitch  is really what drives revenues. Thats Villa’s goal. 

Unless it’s a state that owns you, no one man can or wants to keep running big losses.
 

It’s a huge gamble Villa are going down.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Sibierski said:

Unless it’s a state that owns you, no one man can or wants to keep running big losses.
 

It’s a huge gamble Villa are going down.

Roman Abro disagrees. 

[David Edgar]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Roman Abro disagrees. 

 

That was Russian state ownership.

[Sibierski]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Roman Abro disagrees. 

I’d argue the 00s was a different era, but as we went into the mid 10s, he made sure Chelsea was not operating at those losses. 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

 

That was Russian state ownership.

Point being he made a profit despite all of the losses he ran up. 

[ikri]

49 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Aye but all UEFA can do is issue a fine. If you have billions but are only able to spend millions, a few thousand pounds isn't going to deter you.

 

I suppose Juventus got their ban didn't they, but Man City's was overturned. I assume Juventus hired the wrong lawyers.

 

 

 

 

UEFA fines are included in Premier League PSR calculations so a £10m UEFA fine (as unlikely as that would be) could have a decent impact.

[Turnbull2000]

17 minutes ago, ikri said:

 

UEFA fines are included in Premier League PSR calculations so a £10m UEFA fine (as unlikely as that would be) could have a decent impact.

 

Chelsea would probably package the £10m into a bond and then sell it to a sister company at 0.1% interest.

[Dr.Spaceman]

12 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

Chelsea would probably package the £10m into a bond and then sell it to a sister company at 0.1% interest.

 

But if that sort of thing is doable then why aren't other clubs doing it? It makes no sense as to how they're getting away with seemingly shady business practices but everyone else is happy to sit back, barely even toeing the line.

[r0cafella]

5 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

But if that sort of thing is doable then why aren't other clubs doing it? It makes no sense as to how they're getting away with seemingly shady business practices but everyone else is happy to sit back, barely even toeing the line.

Because the elephant in the room is this, most clubs don't care to win the league I mean cartel clubs, they just want to be in the champions league. For them they have put rules in place which restricts people like us and gives them plenty of space to spend. 

[The College Dropout]

20 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

But if that sort of thing is doable then why aren't other clubs doing it? It makes no sense as to how they're getting away with seemingly shady business practices but everyone else is happy to sit back, barely even toeing the line.

Chelsea holding group has lost £400m this year.

 

 

Who wants to do that? Do PIF even want to do that year on year with us?

[Turnbull2000]

17 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

But if that sort of thing is doable then why aren't other clubs doing it? It makes no sense as to how they're getting away with seemingly shady business practices but everyone else is happy to sit back, barely even toeing the line.

 

Probably because no significant fines or punishments are handed out. If Villa sell their women's team, we're pretty much in a club of one in which you're desperate to challenge the cartel clubs, but also play by the rules and not exploit loopholes. The rest are largely businessmen owned, and increasingly American businessmen, who are happy to capture any value gains by just being. That the Americans may soon have the premier league voting majority makes me shudder.

[Jackie Broon]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

They are owned by a very rich man in terms of real losses. 
 

For PSR success on the pitch  is really what drives revenues. Thats Villa’s goal. 

 

To some extent but it's sustained success over many years that is needed to really drive up revenues.

 

Villa have got themselves into a position where they have a completely unsustainable wage bill and are reliant on getting into the CL every season, and/or selling assets, to avoid falling foul of PL PSR.

 

Whilst they will just get a derisory fine this time, they seemingly have no way of complying with UEFA FFP in the foreseeable future and by their rules the punishments will get progressively more severe, eventually leading to a European ban.

 

It just doesn't seem to be sustainable for them, I just can't see them having the kind on long term success to increase their revenue that much before it comes crashing down.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[Dr.Spaceman]

It's so sad to see.

[Turnbull2000]

14 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

To some extent but it's sustained success over many years that is needed to really drive up revenues.

 

Villa have got themselves into a position where they have a completely unsustainable wage bill and are reliant on getting into the CL every season, and/or selling assets, to avoid falling foul of PL PSR.

 

Whilst they will just get a derisory fine this time, they seemingly have no way of complying with UEFA FFP in the foreseeable future and by their rules the punishments will get progressively more severe, eventually leading to a European ban.

 

It just doesn't seem to be sustainable for them, I just can't see them having the kind on long term success to increase their revenue that much before it comes crashing down.

 

 

 

 

A new ground in 2030 may help, but we'd pretty much end up in the Villa situation if we wanted a squad capable of domestic and Europe competition every season, would we not?

[macphisto]

At what point can we start to command the same price, as fair market value, for our sponsorship deals as the "cartel clubs", even if they are related to PIF? 

 

Surely we can make a case to charge the same as Man U and Spurs given our league finishes over the last few years and winning the cup? I'd be fairly confident that we'd win any court case  and I'm also sure a costly legal battle is the last thing the PL would want. 

 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by macphisto