Pitarch Leaves | Page 9 | Vital Football

Pitarch Leaves

mike_field said:
If I missed a previous post my apologies...but only just seen this.

Ignoring the first few sentences, I again repeat I'm not an expert and what I know also comes from accountants and those in the finance world as to their understanding of FFP. But like them, I've actually read the guff.

The stadium shenanigans should've actually tripped the 'spirit' intention of the rules but as the Champ had let others do it and missed that trick, effectively a precedent was set allowing us to follow the same. But it's hugely debatable as to whether it actually complies with FFP as it stands because FFP is all about debt to revenue and playing an underhand 1-off card to sell the Stadium to yourself because Stadium revenue falls under the regulations is a bit naughty.

However, I'd love to hear of the other FFP wheezes that nobody has used so far that seemingly are common place to comply that you know about matey.

That also seriously misrepresents the details and specifics of the Man City case and appeal. FFP hasn't been curtailed or ended or anything of the sort. Absolutely no provision in the regulations has been deemed anti-competitive or unlawful. UEFA failed to prove their case to an adequate level (it was also a shambles as nobody launches a legal case when you know claims fall under the relevant Limitations Acts, without even bothering to explain why the Limitations Act should be suspended (in this instance) in the wider determination of justice owing to deception or fraud.

Furthermore any fall out for UEFA doesn't impact on domestic FFP regulations in any European country in any event, that's why FFP is different even within the UK, let alone Europe.

Covid means the FFP determination point has been delayed until the summer of 2021 but hindsight is a lovely thing thinking we could've run that gambit back in January, even if, on assumption, we had another £30-40million to play with - that we could've then rectified had relegation occurred.

Yes we now have even more wriggle room in August to take a risk, banking on balancing the last two seasons in January with sales if absolutely necessary but FFP isn't over and it's spurious to think it is.

Given I only have a mechanical analysis and understanding, I again repeat a big provision within FFP is operating within the spirit of the rules, so your idea we can artificially inflate stadium sponsorship, or shirt sponsorship fails - for many reasons.

Linked deals based on owners are looked at even more closely (a provision in itself) and Man City also almost fell foul of that but they didn't take the piss. I can only imagine at best we've had a £10m 2 yr deal on shirt sponsorship - our owners cannot use one of their businesses and make that instantly £30m. It's not that simple as the regulations dictate market value and exposure matters and there's no way we can justify sponsorship of any sort in the region of the top 10 sides from this season after 1 year back, surviving by the skin of our teeth.

I agree it's not rocket science, but it's also not accountancy tricks. This isn't fucking with a balance sheet or cooking the books, owners can only physically subsidise so far because all spending has to be justified by incoming revenue. NSWE could absolutely put one million pounds (credit Austin Powers) into the club, it would sit happily on our balance sheet, it would sit happily in the bank but it's not revenue to prop up wages or increase transfer spend.

They could put in 3 billion if they wanted...we still couldn't use it for wages or spending and that's without me even mentioning my now favourite line - wage growth stipulations which despite mentioning about three billion times, few seem to be aware of.

Whilst I agree with the thrust of your ending, as I'm no FFP fan simply because whilst I agree with the ethos, the enaction of it stifles growth and doesn't protect clubs anyway which is what it's supposed to do - you're talking pie in the sky.

We're back in the Prem, the major punishment is now pay an unspecified fine that is FFP accountable. The EFL significantly beefed up their punishments with QPR after they decided they could ignore it.

Do you want Villa's greatest achievement since 1981/82 to be the PL take umbrage that we take the piss so significantly they feel they need to beef up their own punishments so it's not just a fine, but it could also be points deductions and/or relegation?

Or go the other way - instead of our risk last summer on signing, we take a new risk and spend £300million on players that gets everyone's backs up - we don't click - and we go down.

We balanced both risks this season with our spending, that's why I say we can easily spend £150m again this window (and it should be on 4 key instant first team additions) and then we have another £50m to gamble on youngsters, up and coming unknowns etc.

But NSWE cannot spunk that money into us for us to spunk out. It's based on revenue only.

I think that was everything given you didn't really have a question chap?
Click to expand...
“I'm not being cheeky and if you don't know but ask questions I'm probably not in a position to answer tonight :guiness:but I will answer tomorrow matey.” Maybe you forgot you wrote this. You were claiming that Villa were self sustainable and that the days of owners pumping in money were long gone. I sent you the accounting statement showing the owners stating there were pumping in money and were continuing to.
As to your ffp points I'm not saying ffp is without effect but I think by your own admission the stadium deal was one that got through that shouldn't have due to the spirit clause. When I'm saying you look at it mechanically I mean you didn't consider phalanxes of well paid lawyers hell-bent on fulfilling their clients wishes come what may against what often seems like timid and incompetent efforts by authorities to defend ffp. In my view Man City got away with substantial "non commercial" related party transactions but we can differ on that. I'd say there is quite a bit of headroom for related party sponsorship as a result and covid provides another opportunity. I'm not suggesting a number and would be interested to know where you get the 150m for transfers from....is it an educated guess based on annual revenue?
The latest wheeze being used is an inflated swap deal which Barcelona did. It was priced at 70 odd million and with a 4 year contract on the incoming hey presto eu52.5 profit for the year. And only 10 odd million changed hands. I guess they are relying on the authorities not questioning the amount (that would be a debacle) and they are kicking losses down the road thinking things will have changed when the piper comes calling.
 
Hifriedelity said:
“I'm not being cheeky and if you don't know but ask questions I'm probably not in a position to answer tonight :guiness:but I will answer tomorrow matey.” Maybe you forgot you wrote this. You were claiming that Villa were self sustainable and that the days of owners pumping in money were long gone. I sent you the accounting statement showing the owners stating there were pumping in money and were continuing to.
As to your ffp points I'm not saying ffp is without effect but I think by your own admission the stadium deal was one that got through that shouldn't have due to the spirit clause. When I'm saying you look at it mechanically I mean you didn't consider phalanxes of well paid lawyers hell-bent on fulfilling their clients wishes come what may against what often seems like timid and incompetent efforts by authorities to defend ffp. In my view Man City got away with substantial "non commercial" related party transactions but we can differ on that. I'd say there is quite a bit of headroom for related party sponsorship as a result and covid provides another opportunity. I'm not suggesting a number and would be interested to know where you get the 150m for transfers from....is it an educated guess based on annual revenue?
The latest wheeze being used is an inflated swap deal which Barcelona did. It was priced at 70 odd million and with a 4 year contract on the incoming hey presto eu52.5 profit for the year. And only 10 odd million changed hands. I guess they are relying on the authorities not questioning the amount (that would be a debacle) and they are kicking losses down the road thinking things will have changed when the piper comes calling.
Click to expand...

Hifriedelity said:
“I'm not being cheeky and if you don't know but ask questions I'm probably not in a position to answer tonight :guiness:but I will answer tomorrow matey.” Maybe you forgot you wrote this. You were claiming that Villa were self sustainable and that the days of owners pumping in money were long gone. I sent you the accounting statement showing the owners stating there were pumping in money and were continuing to.
As to your ffp points I'm not saying ffp is without effect but I think by your own admission the stadium deal was one that got through that shouldn't have due to the spirit clause. When I'm saying you look at it mechanically I mean you didn't consider phalanxes of well paid lawyers hell-bent on fulfilling their clients wishes come what may against what often seems like timid and incompetent efforts by authorities to defend ffp. In my view Man City got away with substantial "non commercial" related party transactions but we can differ on that. I'd say there is quite a bit of headroom for related party sponsorship as a result and covid provides another opportunity. I'm not suggesting a number and would be interested to know where you get the 150m for transfers from....is it an educated guess based on annual revenue?
The latest wheeze being used is an inflated swap deal which Barcelona did. It was priced at 70 odd million and with a 4 year contract on the incoming hey presto eu52.5 profit for the year. And only 10 odd million changed hands. I guess they are relying on the authorities not questioning the amount (that would be a debacle) and they are kicking losses down the road thinking things will have changed when the piper comes calling.
Click to expand...

No mate didn't forget, but as I'd scanned the thread I didn't see any follow up questions so didn't bother adding anything else as when it comes to FFP, I'm largely just repeating myself as I've said it previously and it's easier to just answer direct questions.

I've also not had an accounting statement from you?

FFP precludes an owner from pumping in millions for transfer spend - that's the whole point of it sadly. That's why the whole thing is spending and debt in relation to strict revenue. With only a £13-15m wriggle room for physical owner cash in relation to player spend.

All along, even under the Good Tweeter we tapped out the upper limit of what could be physically put in by the owner, that's why the higher debt ceiling applied to us as it acknowledged the small subsidy put in.

One of the most self sustainable clubs in the four divisions....and we can go far further. But the self sustainable in this sense applies to first team spending for FFP reasons, wages to turnover etc - NOT the club as a whole and our full existence.

I think you might have confused the provisions for FFP though given your above post. There is a strict difference between owners putting money into the club and then owners putting money into the first team - so yes, my words would've looked misleading there.

As I've said somewhere, the owners could pump a billion quid into us, but not for transfer spend. NSWE have put in well over £200m so far, but that goes to day to day running costs (not match day related expenditure), the Academy, Bodymoor Heath etc etc. Little of that is counted for FFP purposes, it's allowed investment and expenditure because by default it looks after the long term health of a club (FFP's raison d'etre) - so non of that spending counts as investment or debt for profit and sustainability reasons.

But obviously exists on our balance sheet so to save it being 'debt owed to owners' that's why they convert it into shares etc (wider accountancy wriggles that go on everywhere).

But those wriggles don't apply to FFP as there is a world of difference between our normal/legal accounts and then our FFP accounts that have to be submitted at the end of each season.

Re the stadium, I find it a personal fudge that shouldn't have been allowed because it's a remedy not open to all clubs and not all clubs own their stadium. That doesn't tick the 'spirit' provision as they apply to inter-owner related deals though - but it would've been looked at under those provisions as per 'market valuation' and the deal was worth. We were always going to pass on that front given the valuations Sheff W and Derby to name two, put on their grounds. It's a perfectly legal deal under the provisions if you can prove 'market value'.....but again for me, it shouldn't be allowed on a level playing field basis.

Re lawyers - that's already been done, QPR tried it and ultimately failed because there was a free vote for clubs to implement FFP and clubs voted for it, so QPR's arguments didn't stand up and the EFL's case was tight.

Re City - that's not CAS's determination, they didn't 'pass' City they simply determined that UEFA hadn't proven their case on the balance of probabilities, no doubt helped by UEFA's massive failings in their paperwork.

City have undoubtedly pushed the boat but UEFA have buggered themselves here, not FFP as a thing though.

Re sponsorship etc, yes there is wriggle room there, but again, we can't suddenly get NSWE to sponsor us at top 10 club levels (yet) because we still have to show any deal is 'market value' so we can't think of it as an extra way to get £10m into the club each season for spending. Same applies to ground sponsorship/stand sponsorship etc. For the effort, the money and the paperwork to inflate our FFP position at a small enough level that would still pass all the tests - we're better off finishing 2 places higher for what we'd get away with at the moment in our first year back.

Re Covid, FFP hasn't disappeared, the determination point has just been delayed and it'll be rolled into one at the end of 2021 - it might give us a bit more wriggle room, it might not make any difference at all.

The only clubs it undoubtedly helps are those just promoted (if they pushed their EFL FFP limits) and those just relegated as they can definitely see what happens in the first half of the season before panicking about the loss of PL revenue and selling over the summer. They can delay any fire sale until January if needed and hope to start the year flying.

All in, from figures and Purslow/DS own confirmation in an interview we spent circa £150m on fees over the summer. Naturally that's not instant debt spreading it over the life of the player contract. It's not been confirmed yet (unless I've missed it) but that's basically what we'll get in revenue and merit money from the PL for survival. Therefore it's just an educated guess we now have another £150m to play with on the basis that it's what we'll again get at the end of the season now.

Spending roughly what we receive on an FFP front means we are within the regulations and the debt ceilings anyway, again it would mean the posited £150m we can now spend again, would also keep us within FFP for 2020/21.

A decent wedge over two years without any risk of breaching the regulations.

Re Barcelona, I'd need a link to check it out before commenting as I'm not aware of that one or the position they are in, but that's always gone on. We did it with Curtis Davies all those years back, a deal like that could be either FFP purposes or just generic accounting purposes.

It's also difficult to overly draw comparisons with fellow European leagues, and FFP has been implemented differently by each domestic association.
 
Mike, not sure about the £150m from the PL. I think for last season Man C got about that, whereas Brighton in 17th got about £105m (less merit, less appearance money, than the top teams). Add in the fact that some TV money for this season may be paid back, and money may be a lot tighter, for everyone, than we think.
 
mike_field said:
No mate didn't forget, but as I'd scanned the thread I didn't see any follow up questions so didn't bother adding anything else as when it comes to FFP, I'm largely just repeating myself as I've said it previously and it's easier to just answer direct questions.

I've also not had an accounting statement from you?

FFP precludes an owner from pumping in millions for transfer spend - that's the whole point of it sadly. That's why the whole thing is spending and debt in relation to strict revenue. With only a £13-15m wriggle room for physical owner cash in relation to player spend.

All along, even under the Good Tweeter we tapped out the upper limit of what could be physically put in by the owner, that's why the higher debt ceiling applied to us as it acknowledged the small subsidy put in.

One of the most self sustainable clubs in the four divisions....and we can go far further. But the self sustainable in this sense applies to first team spending for FFP reasons, wages to turnover etc - NOT the club as a whole and our full existence.

I think you might have confused the provisions for FFP though given your above post. There is a strict difference between owners putting money into the club and then owners putting money into the first team - so yes, my words would've looked misleading there.

As I've said somewhere, the owners could pump a billion quid into us, but not for transfer spend. NSWE have put in well over £200m so far, but that goes to day to day running costs (not match day related expenditure), the Academy, Bodymoor Heath etc etc. Little of that is counted for FFP purposes, it's allowed investment and expenditure because by default it looks after the long term health of a club (FFP's raison d'etre) - so non of that spending counts as investment or debt for profit and sustainability reasons.

But obviously exists on our balance sheet so to save it being 'debt owed to owners' that's why they convert it into shares etc (wider accountancy wriggles that go on everywhere).

But those wriggles don't apply to FFP as there is a world of difference between our normal/legal accounts and then our FFP accounts that have to be submitted at the end of each season.

Re the stadium, I find it a personal fudge that shouldn't have been allowed because it's a remedy not open to all clubs and not all clubs own their stadium. That doesn't tick the 'spirit' provision as they apply to inter-owner related deals though - but it would've been looked at under those provisions as per 'market valuation' and the deal was worth. We were always going to pass on that front given the valuations Sheff W and Derby to name two, put on their grounds. It's a perfectly legal deal under the provisions if you can prove 'market value'.....but again for me, it shouldn't be allowed on a level playing field basis.

Re lawyers - that's already been done, QPR tried it and ultimately failed because there was a free vote for clubs to implement FFP and clubs voted for it, so QPR's arguments didn't stand up and the EFL's case was tight.

Re City - that's not CAS's determination, they didn't 'pass' City they simply determined that UEFA hadn't proven their case on the balance of probabilities, no doubt helped by UEFA's massive failings in their paperwork.

City have undoubtedly pushed the boat but UEFA have buggered themselves here, not FFP as a thing though.

Re sponsorship etc, yes there is wriggle room there, but again, we can't suddenly get NSWE to sponsor us at top 10 club levels (yet) because we still have to show any deal is 'market value' so we can't think of it as an extra way to get £10m into the club each season for spending. Same applies to ground sponsorship/stand sponsorship etc. For the effort, the money and the paperwork to inflate our FFP position at a small enough level that would still pass all the tests - we're better off finishing 2 places higher for what we'd get away with at the moment in our first year back.

Re Covid, FFP hasn't disappeared, the determination point has just been delayed and it'll be rolled into one at the end of 2021 - it might give us a bit more wriggle room, it might not make any difference at all.

The only clubs it undoubtedly helps are those just promoted (if they pushed their EFL FFP limits) and those just relegated as they can definitely see what happens in the first half of the season before panicking about the loss of PL revenue and selling over the summer. They can delay any fire sale until January if needed and hope to start the year flying.

All in, from figures and Purslow/DS own confirmation in an interview we spent circa £150m on fees over the summer. Naturally that's not instant debt spreading it over the life of the player contract. It's not been confirmed yet (unless I've missed it) but that's basically what we'll get in revenue and merit money from the PL for survival. Therefore it's just an educated guess we now have another £150m to play with on the basis that it's what we'll again get at the end of the season now.

Spending roughly what we receive on an FFP front means we are within the regulations and the debt ceilings anyway, again it would mean the posited £150m we can now spend again, would also keep us within FFP for 2020/21.

A decent wedge over two years without any risk of breaching the regulations.

Re Barcelona, I'd need a link to check it out before commenting as I'm not aware of that one or the position they are in, but that's always gone on. We did it with Curtis Davies all those years back, a deal like that could be either FFP purposes or just generic accounting purposes.

It's also difficult to overly draw comparisons with fellow European leagues, and FFP has been implemented differently by each domestic association.
Click to expand...
Excellent article.
Could you please tell me with reference to the ground deal can the owners sell Villa Park for development if they so desired.
 
I'm rounding increased sponsorship as well mate - trappings for being PL full stop but I genuinely can't remember how many times we've been on TV either lol

I can't factor in what I don't know re money being pulled back though, so this is all just ball park anyway. Even without assuming we could've spent more last summer/January, if we were confident FFP wise shelling out roughly £150m last year, we can again this season now.
 
wittonite said:
Excellent article.
Could you please tell me with reference to the ground deal can the owners sell Villa Park for development if they so desired.
Click to expand...

Ultimately they can do what they want, whether or not the Stadium is officially club owned or just owned by our owners.

I do believe a few years back though the Supporters Trust got us listed and recognised as a community asset (or whatever that phrase is) so they couldn't do that without oversight and all that malarky.
 
The one thing that is bothering me is why wait till the end of the season to sack Suso, pitarch, jesus or whatever his name is.

If Purslow was thinking he had done so badly why not sack him after the january window closed or when the virus hit so he could get a new director of football in to get up to speed.

I speculate that Perslow had no intention to sack Suso and in his meeting with the owners he got that much of bollocking just blamed everything on Suso to save his own neck. I'm not saying Suso didn't deserve the sack it's just weird timing.
 
Press, PR, upheaval, a clear message that when we needed to pull together and be on the same page everyone had failed where we wanted to be. It seems (speculation aside about relationship between a minority of individuals) Suso was decently enough liked (judging by celebrations etc).

It was just the wrong time mate.
 
The official line (I think) is that Purslow started a review at the beginning of July as to where we ought to be going and ultimately Pitarch didn't fit. That would explain the timing. Believe it if you will. There may have been good reasons for doing it that way. If Purslow and Pitarch didn't see eye to eye it doesn't mean necessarily that he has to go.
 
hightrinity said:
The one thing that is bothering me is why wait till the end of the season to sack Suso, pitarch, jesus or whatever his name is.

If Purslow was thinking he had done so badly why not sack him after the january window closed or when the virus hit so he could get a new director of football in to get up to speed.

I speculate that Perslow had no intention to sack Suso and in his meeting with the owners he got that much of bollocking just blamed everything on Suso to save his own neck. I'm not saying Suso didn't deserve the sack it's just weird timing.
Click to expand...
That's some interesting speculation.... I think it was simply that any upheaval mid-season was an unnecessary distraction. Any mid-season change of staff sends the message that the club is in desperation/panic mode. I think it was 100% the right timing... immediately after the end of the season with enough time to re-group, re-structure and/or hire a replacement.
I'll go out on a limb and predict that the manager will have a greater say on transfers in the future....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.