The 'Profit & Sustainability' Thread | Page 18 | Vital Football

The 'Profit & Sustainability' Thread

Loads of comments on the BBC about how we have avoided ffp. Being near admin last year.
20th July last year when the new owners breezed in - at that point we couldn't afford to pay the taxman. Fast forward 12 months and we are spending upwards of £80m on players.

What a difference a year makes.
 
The fact we were bust and would have been liquited is unthinkable but the new owners have bankrolled us and I wonder what the market value of the club is now?
 
Seeing this morning that we're apparently yet again in danger of breaching FFP rules according to some DM journo. Seems that the British press are desperate to convict us of this so we have to sell Jack.
 
It says we'd have two weeks after the end of the season to balance the books because our annual accounting period ends on May 31st.
 
The article seems more concerned with selling Jack from under us than anything else. I've seen it all before from Yorke to Barry to Benteke and a few more in between. Now it's Jack, McGinn and Mings who the British press think NEED to move on from Villa for whatever reason.
 
I'm unsure of the correct response here, so apologies if my massive ManFlu makes me choose the wrong phrase.

Utter bollocks seems to suffice.

The writer (oxymoron) clearly doesn't understand how FFP works or that there's a difference between the far tighter assessment in the EFL and the freer assessment in the Prem for a start.

We passed under EFL rules (they cannot now come back to us in any event) and one season into the Prem it's impossible for us to breach FFP (let alone on revenue estimations we still have wriggle room to spend in January.

I'm guessing said writer doesn't know that the wage stipulations are separate regulations to FFP as well and although % capped, there's no way we've lost the likes of Jedi, Hutton et al and given their replacements that the replacements are on more money, so again bullshit of the highest order.

Writer also doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between spending and debt, let alone the fact that for any FFP figures the end of the accounting period is just that, you don't then get a fortnight to balance the books (that accountancy, fack all to do with FFP because the season is over - we also have to submit estimated and provisional figures after the Jan window closes anyway) so we and the Prem will know roughly where we are.

The two week claim to balance books is even more bizarre when you think of the period the window is actually shut for the end of the season anyway (let alone we are into a new financial year by then, so a new FFP period).

Oh and as the article states about the 3 yr period, we passed the 3 yr period last time. We've lost a season and the remaining two seasons would naturally be judged under Prem remit, so we have even more freedom even if we were close in the EFL. The article doesn't seem to understand itself - same as referencing payments over the course of a contract - assuming it's quartered for a 4 yr deal, until that section of the payment becomes due, it's not fucking debt!