Villa and FFP

[CA Baggie]

I'm pretty sure (can't be arsed to Google it) that, prior to Abramovich's arrival, Chelsea had won the title the same number of times as us (i.e. once) and the cup fewer (three to our five).

And on the brink of going bust with Ken Bates' huge overspending.

Famous for being supported by Terry McCann and hooligans, surviving on the basis of geography.

[sickParrot]

The idea of FFP is a good thing imho. The money going into the game is ridiculous. When the bubble it bursts it will enviably hurt the game we love.

The way FFP is implemented if fucking awful and does nothing to protect smaller clubs, such as Bolton and Bury.

[yeoman lai]

Our previous owner knew the implications of FFP and was one of the few chairman to vote against it.

Terry McCann supported Fulham btw CA.

[Sliced]

The idea of FFP is a good thing imho. The money going into the game is ridiculous. When the bubble it bursts it will enviably hurt the game we love.

The way FFP is implemented if fucking awful and does nothing to protect smaller clubs, such as Bolton and Bury.

I completely agree with this. The parameters are a million miles away from what they should be.

[SW4Baggie]

Our previous owner knew the implications of FFP and was one of the few chairman to vote against it.

Terry McCann supported Fulham btw CA.

Peace knew that FFP would limit his sale options and got out long before it bit him.

[Pragmatist]

The concept of FFP - protecting the future of clubs from reckless overspending - is sound. But its effect, which I used to think was an unintended consequence but am now convinced was a “closed shop” protectionist ploy by the big clubs, is killing the English game.

It ought to be as simple as this. Apply the same basic rules on permissible spending levels that apply today. But then allow all clubs to spend as much as they like in excess of the permitted levels, PROVIDED that the surplus monies are all paid in as capital, not debt, so that the entire risk re the additional funding is with the owner, not with the club. Any club can then find a wealthy owner and that owner can freely throw £500m or £1billion at trying to get that club to the top - it is the owner’s money to spend on the club but only if it’s not a debt then owed by the club.

Not only should the owners have to inject the capital required, but they should also have to lodge as security collateral with the Premier League a sum guaranteed to cover the next two seasons’ wage bill based on the player contracts, over and beyond the permitted level. This prevents the situation for example whereby an owner either walks off in a huff, goes bust or dies, but would leave the club with 2 seasons of unfunded and unaffordable excess wages.

Put these measures in and every decent-sized club becomes attractive to potential owners, but on a low-risk basis. If Villa’s mega-wealthy owners want to risk £1 billion of their own money, then that’s fine. The likes of Leeds, Forest, Wednesday, ourselves, Derby, Stoke, plus all Premier League clubs outside the big 4 suddenly could dream of being allowed to compete with the big 4.

That sort of FFP system has huge appeal, without removing the original controls which are clearly still needed.

[Tom Joad]

I wouldn't get too mithered.  They'll be allowed to do exactly as they want, as ever.  The word lucky doesn't cover it where they are concerned.   The only consolation is they'll never be satisfied no matter what they do.  They weren't happy with finishing in the top 5 in the top division.  Give 'em a few years of trying to compete and wait for it....."but we're a big club, Wahhh…."

[Pragmatist]

Some of the posters on their Heroes & Villains site are as thick as you’d expect. They say “we get an extra £100m a year from Sky and have only spent £90m on transfers since coming up, which if players are on 4-year contracts is only £22.5m a year”.

Er...they’re forgetting (a) that they were already making huge annual losses in the Championship, so an extra £100m probably means only a net extra c£50m, (b) the wages of their promoted squad will have contractually doubled since last season, which probably uses up another £50m, and © the wages of their new signings (was it 8?) at an average of £60k/week comes to another £24m a year.

Their reckless and awful spending last summer will come back and haunt them.

Above all, I love their “Purslow knows the FFP rules inside out and I trust him” claim. I think what they really mean is that Purslow was “on good terms” with the previous executives of the EFL. Their replacements have more teeth.

[Kit Kat Chunky]

Some of the posters on their Heroes & Villains site are as thick as you’d expect.  They say “we get an extra £100m a year from Sky and have only spent £90m on transfers since coming up, which if players are on 4-year contracts is only £22.5m a year”.

Er...they’re forgetting (a) that they were already making huge annual losses in the Championship, so an extra £100m probably means only a net extra c£50m, (b) the wages of their promoted squad will have contractually doubled since last season, which probably uses up another £50m, and © the wages of their new signings (was it 8?) at an average of £60k/week comes to another £24m a year.

Their reckless and awful spending last summer will come back and haunt them.

Above all, I love their “Purslow knows the FFP rules inside out and I trust him” claim. I think what they really mean is that Purslow was “on good terms” with the previous executives of the EFL.  Their replacements have more teeth.

+1

[SW4Baggie]

Also, where have they got this £90m sum from?

They spent about £130m....