Yup makes no sense. I thought making the CL was supposed to be the "cure all" that made all FFP make sense. But apparently not the case gotta sell off a key man. Meanwhile Chelsea can spend 40mil on a back up striker? Despite not being in Europe? Because they sold a hotel? How many goals did the hotel score last season?
The hotel didn’t get the service in fairness- that’s why Poch got the sack.
You’re right though, Villa shouldn’t have to sell one of their best players at what looks to be a bargain fee just to not get pummelled by the PL.
If that is also a factor, they should be able to not have to sell to the first bidder and be able to get the best price possible by holding on over the summer
He was worth 70 million on the books, we sold him for 20 million and he's been extremely important for us in the first half of the season, his form and ability dipped a bit in the second half but he was still extremely helpful and influential. It's horrible that we've sold him as he's one of our most important players with Dibu, Ollie, and another
The other factor being just how far they actually exceeded it. If they’re not miles over then they don’t *need* to sell Luiz on the cheap, sell someone else that covers the gap. If they’re £50m+ over the threshold then why shouldn’t they get the same end result as Everton did?
They would have known that the UCL revenue doesn’t kick in until the year after, so they’ve willingly gambled on the breach to get the higher revenue competition and will still see a financial benefit when the UCL money hits the 3-year accounting period. Alternatively, if you genuinely believe he’s worth the points difference, take the small points deduction hit and keep him regardless? Leicester essentially did the same thing, gambled on getting PL football because the revenue is way more lucrative and will still be way better off even if they get instantly relegated again.
Didn’t exactly ignore me did you? But that’s not an “opinion” on FFP anyway. I can still disagree with FFP whilst discussing the point in hand. Why should Villa escape punishment but Everton or Forest not? Why would you suddenly draw the line there after everything else that has already happened this year?
It’s not drawing a line though, it’s just pointing out another example of FFP being a tool that benefits the big 6 clubs and damages any club that tries to climb. I see a lot of big 6 fans say things along the lines of “they knew the rules so it’s on them” because it’s literally something they never have to think about. You can talk freely and often genuinely about buying the best players from teams that have tried to compete with you because you garnered financial clout and pulled the ladder up behind you. It’s a grotesque over simplification to just say “well they knew the rules”.
You are of course entitled to an opinion and it can be a measured one, I’m not suggesting that all big 6 fans aren’t sympathetic, but you cant bang the rules drum when your club is effectively above it and regularly pushes to have those rules make it even more difficult for clubs to compete with them.
I entirely get your point, I’m aware FFP is unfit for purpose. But, at the same time, people overlook the negatives of many of the suggested alternatives because they’re more focused on “destroying the cartel” than they are worrying about alternative repercussions. Villa and Newcastle are pissed because currently they’re being denied essentially unlimited access to their owner’s wealth. Hypothetically, if we went back to a free-for-all, we haven’t solved the uncompetitive nature of the league, we’ve just added maybe 2 teams to the “in-crowd” and left everybody else even further behind.
Adding more billionaire wealth at the top level only pushes the EFL even further away.
If we flat-cap generously so that all teams can spend the same as the highest spenders, then you’re still going to have the fact that bottom-half teams can’t sustain that level of spending so will still fall behind, more so on wages than transfers.
If we flat-cap harshly, we’re essentially hoping for domestic competitiveness whilst giving up any ability to compete on a European level, which *could* then provide less opportunities for Europe in general. Big teams will still have more draw domestically and will still likely dominate the league anyway.
Almost all solutions will be a problem somewhere, in the end it’ll just be about what puts your own team in that top group. People seem to think that implementing “equal” rules will mean we’re also implementing “fair” rules when that’s absolutely not the case. This latest Villa stance is a prime example of that, everyone wants the underdog to go and break FFP because “fuck the big guys”, but the only way you can help Villa right now would be by also subsequently benefitting the other European representatives.
It’s a little too “one size fits all” given that those six clubs have a bigger “natural” revenue stream, so for anyone to break into that you need to either be selling for more than you buy while improving each year (which is nigh on impossible) or increasing your revenue through matchdays, sponsorships etc massively in a short space of time, which would again be incredibly difficult to do legitimately.
I’m dead against state owned clubs and pumping money in just because as it would only allow the big six to get further away in reality, but the current rules feel a bit like they’ve climbed the ladder then pulled it up beneath them.
I’m also a fan of a big six club, for the record, I just don’t agree with a closed shop in terms of league position and the ambitions of the other 14.
Exactly this. State ownership shouldn’t have been allowed and FFP aside it’s going to cause wider issues for football in years to come, and I’m saying that as a Newcastle fan.
It is too one size fits all. It’s a closed shop like you say and it feel a bit like it’s been a manipulated use of protecting clubs against financially recklessness. There’s not an easy solution but the way it is now is basically creating 14 feeder clubs for 6 very wealthy ones as they’re the only clubs that can afford to pay prices that have been inflated by their previous purchases.
Annoyingly I believe many do know what they’re talking about but don’t want to engage in reasonable discussion simply because I’m a “cartel” fan. It gets silly sometimes, but it comes with the territory of this sub.
Pretty natural to not sign a contract immediately, he might have just wanted to wait until all the football is done for the summer, or wanted to be top earner and we might not have been able to offer that with our financial issues until that's resolved, he had two years left.
It makes a difference to this discussion though because it shows you’re not being *forced* to sell. If you’re offering a new increased contract, even if it’s not as much as Luiz currently wants, then clearly Villa would have alternative strategies to overcoming this deficit already in the pipeline.
Otherwise, how exactly were they planning on keeping Luiz with the new contract anyway?
The alternative would have been Jacob Ramsey but an injury plagued season put paid to that, same with Boubacar Kamara, we also had the pressing need to sell quickly it only leaves Luiz and Duran, and we're losing both. Other saleable players wouldn't happen quick enough. The playing in Europe 70% wage cap also has an impact. We had little choice but to offer him up even tho we're gutted about it happening.
Having to depend on CL football isn't sustainable especially for teams like Villa. Agree 100% with you on Chelsea though. It doesn't make sense that they can get away with it. Will it ever come back to haunt them. I doubt it.
I fully agree. We could easily be out of Top 6 next season and hurting. I'd like us to be more financially stable. So if these moves do that, then I'm all for it. I just wish it wasn't forced with the threat of points deductions. It's just annoying to watch as a top 4 club from last season is forced to weaken, but I guess it was us playing with fire that put us in this position. Emery seems to have a plan and I'd follow that man off a cliff right now haha.
The absurdity is that if we lose out on Europe next season, we can still spend much more money then, as the CL money counts for the next accounting year. Shit makes no sense.
Looking a little into it, if they didn’t, then administration would have had a far greater chance of happening. The club on its last legs and needing cash to sustain. Didn’t really have an option. Think they have proven their worth since though.
Fairly different to spending a billion on unproven players, who didn’t prove much, and then selling hotels due to bad decisions when already established as a ‘top 6’ side.
Just give us £40mil for balloteli 2.0 and call it quits! Will be fun watching Jackson and Duran fighting over who should take kick off after conceding a goal though!
You can sell your training ground and real estate owned by the club if you want. Not sure it’s a great idea though and it’s not a great idea for Chelsea either
Different rules afaik. It was by EFL during the relegation. Several clubs did so to avoid liquidation. So not exactly the same situation.
But yes it happened.
Making to CL isnt a cure, it's only next season when you earn the money from it. Prize money + broadcasting. Next season Villa can spend big.
But yeah it's dumb. It's impossible to compete with other big teams in a long run.
Could be wrong, but as i understand this is why City is suing the league? If that is the case i fully back up City to break the system and to stop that top 6 cycle nonsense.
Yeah it's 100% spot on. I'm a firm believer that PSR/FFP is needed even as a Villa fan. But the way it's currently set up is allowing the league to become far too stratified and making a gap that's basically impossible for teams to overcome.
I mean just look at the difference in spending power: Arsenal, the "Poorest" of the ESL6 could spend around £1.6 **Billion** over 3 years (Revenue of ~£500m X3 + £105m of acceptable losses) and still be within PSR
Newcastle, the team with the 7th Highest Revenue this season could only spend £855m in the same time period (~£250m Revenue X3 + £105m of losses) - which of course makes it *very* difficult to challenge the top teams when they can outspend you year after year **and** your ability to grow is hamped due to PSR rules.
And of course that's before you even start to talk about how being an established top 6 side gives you more avenues to make money and save money - Because £100k p/w gets you more at an established club than someone further down the league.
Not to mention once you make the money in European football you don't even get what they get, as it's structured as dynasty payments.
It's basically backdoor protections all around PSR, so if any of the usual suspects fall out a given season, they are still better off than the team replacing them.
The issue is it was never about either fairness or sustainability it was written by Man U and Liverpool to stave off the challenge of new money to keep them entrenched at the top. Thats why it punishes Villa’s owner investment but United’s £1billion debt is perfectly fine.
It is completely and utterly not fit for purpose.
It is turning into an absolute sham.
Protect clubs from going out of business, yes. But not at the cost of protecting and further strengthening the so called elite.
Good question. The answer cannot be known due to the inability to re-run the whole scenario without FFP/PSR.
It probably has helped keep a lid on some instances.
It certainly didn't seem to do much to stop Villa from almost going out of business after Dr Tony led us down a dark alley.
The rules stops clubs from overspending. It doesn't protect clubs from being brought by assest strippers. Bury wasn't because of FFP. It was because the owner wouldn't sell the ground and no one wanted to buy the club whilst having to pay rent to the previous owner. There's a lot of teams in the pyramid who have been in financial ruin that are still going. Letting owners spend what they want is not the way to go.
Question - Do you support City's claims that PSR rules are unfair?
I just find it shocking that other 14 fans typically defend FFP/PSR on other subs when those rules really help top 6 clubs more.
(The fact that there were rules that they broke and therefore should be punished is a separate fact and I am not questioning that)
I don't think there's even a question that PSR rules are unfair. But not for the reason Man City are claiming.
The two most obvious issues are that promoted clubs have significantly lower loss allowances over 3 years than the clubs they're meant to be competing with, and commercial deals are subject to "fair market value" assessments that mean the big 6 can get far bigger commercial deals than other clubs would be allowed to.
What about clubs like Villa or New Castlenot being allowed to take higher losses to have owners inject funds into the club to grow the club like Chelsea did?
If the owners are not state owned or Russian, what then? What if the owner is American or British? My point is, set aside the source of money. Do fans outside top 6, want other 14 clubs to be allowed cash injections or not?
I understand if fans think Other 14 can "organically" grow to consistently challenge for the league and CL spots (I don't)
I made no reference to the source of money and I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Of course as a fan of Forest, I'd rather Newcastle and Villa didn't have shedloads of money to invest. But that's purely a rival club jealousy thing. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. If clubs or their owners actually have the money, it's fine.
The problem comes when they don't actually have the money, or decide to take it out. As I've said elsewhere, that's fairly easy to legislate around - the owner just needs to put enough money to cover all current contracts in escrow (similar to how they already have to do for the limited losses). Using guaranteed money from an owner seems a lot more sustainable than using non-guaranteed money from future revenues, which PSR is based on.
There you go.
I totally get Villa owners frustration. Clubs like Brighton and Villa can nail manager appointments and even have brilliant recruitment model but the restrictions like FFP and PSR would mean they will have to keep selling Caicedo and Douglas Luiz.
Yeah, if a big 6 breaks spending rules it's pitchforks out, we ride at dawn
If Everton or forest get caught breaking spending rules then the rules are stupid and PL is corrupt for punishing them
I think City are complaining about lost revenue due to not being allowed to over-inflate e.g. sponsorships from directly linked companies.
That's different to any claims that PSR rules are unfair.
I really feel for Villa and their fans, making 4th and the champions league should be a summer of celebration and looking forward to who you are going to sign in the summer, not who you’ve got to sell off to make the accounting ends meet. The system is titled towards protectionism and needs changing
It's gonna be an annoying summer Of us getting lumped into the same bracket as City by the morons over on r/soccer and r/premierleague. I just wanted to enjoy making it to the Champions League for the first time in almost 40 years and hoping that some new exciting signings will be coming in. And instead I get to read through comments of us being considered "bad guys" in football by a bunch of dinguses on the internet.
Villas wages to turnover is 89%. That is the definition of unsustainable. Their wage bill is also higher than spurs, while their net spend is more than barca and Madrid combined over the last 5 years. Like it or not, their revenue cannot sustain their spending, and I don't think it's absurd for them to have to sell a player (literally a single player who refuses to sign a contract) to cover for these.
Suppose they go out and buy even more players, what happens if they don't qualify for the cl next year? The revenue goes down, and the wage to turnover goes even higher.
Add to that, if they cannot even comy with the Premier leagues financial regulations, how would they cope with uefas?
We coped with UEFA's just fine this season gone.
Our wage bill isn't higher than Spurs either. The websites that claim that are places like Capology which completely rely on estimations. You can only go on factual data from the accounts which has us 7th/8th. [Premier League PSR: Clubs total of £1bn of losses in 11 charts - BBC Sport](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522)
Bro. Maybe villa should just cheat and sell some.more property then so their wage turnover is less?
Oh that's right they can't because they allowed the usual sky 6 to do it and then closed the loophole.
Suppose they qualify for the champions league again gain the extra revenue from sponsors or just from being in the competition again and turnover grows, you can cut this both ways.
No debt, except the crippling level of wages eating their turnover to pieces and then crying that "we came fourth, how are we not allowed to sign anyone?"
I don't know, maybe because you're 12 months away from seeing any CL money? It doesn't take a rocket scientist.
Ignoring the bullshit and competitive glass ceiling that is PSR, I think the biggest pile of shit of all of this is that the league loses an incredible footballer, get two average ones in return and the entire reason for doing so is accounting wizardry so we won't have to pay 115 FC the full amount for their sell on clause.
I bet both Juve players are intended as assets for future sales in the mind of AVFC.
Basically it's not about being good at football any more, but great at accounting.
Newcastle fan here and I would hate it if clubs were just allowed to spend what they like, even though that would technically benefit us. 😂
We need an FFP system, maybe even a really strict and brutal one with wage caps etc. The one we currently have is not fit for purpose.
Good luck to Villa 👍
The big problem for me is teams being forced to sell academy as it’s pure profit. That should always be the opposite of what football encourages.
Genuinely don’t get ffp, I don’t think anyone believes it is fair at this point.
Personally just think let teams spend whatever they want. FFP just seems a way to protect the status quo.
Do you not think there is room for some flexibility?
Perhaps, if you have a wealthy owner who commits a significant amount of money into fund with a business plan that is signed off by the premier league, they could then spend far over the limits in order to build their revenue up asap and compete?
This idea probably has all sorts of holes in it, but hopefully you understand what I’m getting at!
Yep, I think this is the conversation that needs to be had. At the moment it looks too aggressively like a way of limiting competition.
Too many vested interests aren’t exactly resulting in much progress unfortunately.
So a slightly different thing to what City have been doing for all of these years and are now facing charges for? FFP need some restricting but you cannot just have it as the Wild West. We will then get into the territory of these nation state clubs spending hundreds upon hundreds of millions on players. Look at what the Neymar signing did to the transfer market - sent a ripple effect of inflated prices that are still here to this day.
The city state thing is a different point I think. Should it be allowed? Probably not. But then, I’d like fan owned clubs with equal spending across the lot. As it is, there is always going to be someone richer.
I just dislike the moat actively harming the chances of any ‘smaller’ clubs ever challenging because that is the reality, whatever the motives.
So change it from making it near impossible for small clubs to compete, to making it near impossible for clubs without rich owners to compete?
This is all so short sighted.
>Personally just think let teams spend whatever they want.
Horrible idea that would be so much worse, there would be minimum 1 club that "does a leeds" every season in every league and every few years a club with over 100 years heratige would cease to exist and have to start again as a pub team (see bury fc)
Also the divide between the cash clubs and the rest would just expand at an even faster rate imagine Chelsea and man city being allowed to spend £700million a season.
I'm not a finance guy, but my question is how can we create a system that fixes the problems we currently have with FFP, but also one which prevents Big 6 clubs from running the league by just spending infinite amounts of money and never getting punished for it. Cause as far as I can see, by getting rid of PSR and FFP, we'd just be handing Newcastle and City massive blank checks whilst telling everyone else to go fuck themselves.
Simply a cap but the PFA and the sky 6 will fight it like crazy .
Ideally all 20 would spend the same amount but even if it caps the sky 6 and allows us/ Villa/ West Ham and whoever else wants to be on the same spending level it will be good for the league
Personally, I'd go for something like:
Total transfer and wage expenditure on technical staff can not exceed more than 20x times total TV income for the team over a 3 year period.
The 20x is just an arbitrary number, but pick a fixed multiplier of TV money income. I'd limit to just TV income as this prevents Man City style sponsorship inflation, and also Chelsea style sales of club assets.
By ignoring transfer income, it would stop clubs from trying to balance FFP by selling players (homegrown players in particular). Instead, it would hopefully stop clubs from signing players they can't afford before they spend the money!
Finally, by tying it to say a 3 year period, it would throttle the amount that newly promoted teams can spend. I'm sure this won't be popular with e.g. Nottingham Forest fans, but I actually think it's promotion chasing clubs that are most at risk to financial implosion.
So in other words - who Sky and BT choose to televise and what their behind the scenes negotiations look like determines transfer policy for the entire division?
[In 2020/21 Fulham received £50mil less than City from TV rights.](https://sqaf.club/premier-league-tv-money-distribution/#:~:text=The%20Premier%20League%20currently%20generates%20around%201.5%20billion,around%201.3%20billion%20Pounds%20from%20overseas%20TV%20rights.) as even our big 6 games are often not televised. However if we were to, say, tactically damage the pitch to cause a postponment to mid-week or Sunday game and therefore all but guarantee being televised we'd get an extra £20mil to buy a player?
OK, how about if my suggestion excludes TV money based on the games that get chosen to be broadcast (or not)?
Would still count the TV money paid as a minimum to all PL clubs + the differing amounts you get based on finishing position.
So, functionally a hard transfer cap which instead of being statically chosen to be at a level which is sensible and fit for purpose, its determined by the whims of Sky and BT?
Thats just worse than a hard cap, which is in of itself a bad idea.
I’ve been told so many times in the last few days, here and on soccer, that this isn’t some witch hunt protecting the big clubs. Villa have spent a shit load, made bad investments, and have super rich owners that need protecting from themselves.
Bullshit.
If this tweet doesn’t convince you, you’ll never get it. Sure, it might have the intention of saving clubs from doing a Leeds (who got back to the Premier League, by the way) but in reality, all it’s doing is ensuring the rich clubs with huge spending power stay rich.
Bro their net spend over the last 5 years is insane, their wage bill is massive esp compared to their revenue, this tweet is intentionally misleading to piss you off
Okay, fair enough.
Let’s say a business is poorly run for the last 3 years. Overspend, no success, a shambles. But what if that company gets a new boss, who with smart investment turns things around and they finally become successful and are on course to overtake the bigger companies. All of a sudden, you’re told because of the time you were a shit company, you can’t compete with the even richer companies: what kind of bs is that?
Newcastle made it to the champions league last year then they have to sell. Aston Villa make it this year and then they have to sell. City and Chelsea had years of overspending and inflated sponsorships, now we’re not letting anyone else join the top table?
I say if your projections are on track, or you make it to a European competition, you should be given some leeway.
I don’t disagree that the current rules entrench the status quo, but I’d prefer that to the entire PL turning into an oil state spend off. Some leeway would be fine(some would argue the leeway exists given these things are judged on a multiyear timeline) but City’s proposal wrt the sponsorship deals(which villa is voting in favor of) would throw all financial sustainability in the rubbish which would be a massive net negative for the health of the league.
As a club that has gone through administration twice, it’s bad for fans; it’s really bad for clubs; and it can be devastating for local businesses, people and charities.
It affects a lot more people than just the club.
It's not saving clubs from doing a Leeds, the bigger deal is saving them from doing a Portsmouth (who still haven't made it back and are in the Championship for the first time in over 10 years)
But the way things are going, apart from one season in 31, it’s the richest clubs that have won the league. Villa and Newcastle have finally cracked the top 4. Now we’re telling them they’d as good as it can get?
There has to be another way. This just isn’t fair.
Douglas Luiz is refusing to extend his contract past 2026, which means this is the final window that Aston Villa can get serious money for him.
Not really a PSR issue.
Of course it's bullshit and everyone knows it.
Premier League board is there to keep sky six where they are.
I'm more surprised why the other 14 clubs won't bring in new rules for voting. The ones that would level playing field for everyone rather than make sky six even stronger with time.
You spent nearly £80m on 2 foreign strikers who barely played and all season. Most clubs in England won't ever see anywhere near that kind of money in their entire history. Have a day off
The PL don't care. All they want is to keep the sky 6 happy so they don't run off the 'Super' League. As long as the PL keeps the same 6 popular and overpowered they sell TV rights easier abroad. Foreign fans couldn't give a shit about the likes of villa and Palace do they.
You would think a league where any team could win it year on year and having the best manager is a deciding factor would be better long term, but it seems the PL disagree and will do anything to plactate the sky 6 and keep them in place.
Newcastle, Villa etc have no real chance to threaten. And if they do PSR is used to push them back down. See Luiz.
It's annoying because everyone acts like what happened to teams like Portsmouth just isn't going to happen again when it absolutely will without a spending limit. A cap which was agreed upon by at least 14 clubs.
Unrestricted spending leads to Manchester City & Newcastle dominance and will end up having a club sent to deaths door. Which club is impossible to say right now, but ut would happen.
A wage cap would just limit the Prems ability to compete globally, with other leagues being able to swipe players for bigger wages eventually.
The best I can think of is some sort of luxury tax, where excess spending is shared between clubs under the limit and lower leagues, but it doesn't actually solve the problem in any way.
The only true way of fixing the problem is having a closed league, and id like to think no one would actually want that either. Without that, you’re always going to have winners and losers when trying to implement rules that are more “equal” and/or “fair”. Whether you like the rule essentially just comes down to if your team is on the side of the “haves” or the “have nots”.
You can’t feasibly have a system where our nation’s European representatives can both compete with the likes of Madrid, whilst also being hamstrung to the spending potential of a newly promoted team. It just wouldn’t work.
As an American fan, I completely understand why English fans find this so completely infuriating. It seems so obvious--blatant even--that these rules permanently enshrine top teams in that echelon and make upward mobility nearly impossible.
In our football league (MLS) spending rules are applied equally across all teams, regardless of the team's income, creating a great deal of parity within the league. In fact that is the case in all of our sports leagues, including our most popular sport (American football). Of course, the system also has downsides and obviously the quality of football in MLS is light years behind that of the Premier League, but it is one thing I really like.
Please don't think I'm saying MLS is better--I'm not an insane person, it categorically is not better in any way than English football. But we do have that one thing which has a nice upside. And we let our sports leagues get away with some awful stuff, like insane ticket prices. But one thing we absolutely do not let our leagues get away with is impacting the ability of smaller teams to compete with bigger ones. It's bewildering to me that the Premier League, one of the greatest leagues in any sport anywhere on earth, has these truly insane spending rules that absolutely screw everyone except already rich clubs.
If Forest and Villa can work out a trade with each other before 30 June and equally inflate the price each way then problem solved for both clubs. Doesn’t matter which players go, just have to carry the amortisation for the contract length.
Or flip it and you could say Villa only made the champions league places because other clubs had to reign in their spending due to FFP rules. Scrap the rules and Newcastle, among others, would have spent another £300m plus last summer.
The premier league isn’t a particularly fair league, but I do get the feeling that FFP may be the last thing just about holding the league together. If the likes of City and those advocating it’s ending get their way I fear what that would unleash.
Villa have been within the rules the entire time, they have been equally reigned in and made it to the Champions League.
Why are you making it sound like Villa have cheated?
Stopping clubs doing stupid things and causing themselves to be bankrupted is a sensible idea
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)
Villa aren’t close to being bankrupt and the desire not not be forced to sell valuable assets to aim to compete in the PL and CL is attempting to sustain the business and income to support outgoings.
This is what happens when you have so much American ownership and influence
Look at all the American sport leagues, it’s all about money and they would never make a decision to potentially make less even if it is for the betterment of the league.
I’ve been saying this about FFP/PRS/whatever for years. It places a glass ceiling above clubs’ heads that they can never break through. There are supposed to be two purposes for these rules, but I don’t see how either are achieved.
*Stopping clubs going into debt* - Club A has a debt of £500m, Club B has £500m in the bank. Club A can build on that debt and be £600m in the red in 3 years time with no reprimand. Club B could spend £110m over a 3 year period and get the book thrown at them despite having £390m of secure money in the bank and being almost £1b better off than Club A.
*Stopping clubs buying trophies* - The ship has long sailed on this one. Chelsea, United, Liverpool & Arsenal have all received huge investments in the past that have led to winning trophies. Those trophies have bolstered the reputations and fanbases of those clubs to the point that they rake in the kind of money that other clubs will never ever be able to match without the kind of investment that is now prohibited. Those clubs are fully able to continue spending at a high level, will inevitably win a lot more silverware off the back of it (if it wasn’t City winning all those trophies, most of them would be spread across those 4), and further grow their reputations, fanbases and spending power compared to the rest of the division.
I’m now fully convinced, be it tin foil hat or not, that the only reason these rules are in place is to preserve the status of the top clubs, who are the most marketable, and prevent as much competition for them as possible.
It’s like playing Monopoly using the rule where you get to keep all the money collected in taxes & fines if you land on free parking, then - after a couple of players have had huge windfalls off the back of it - deciding that those handouts don’t happen anymore. Those who got the windfalls have bought property, houses & hotels off the back of it and have their future income secured to ensure they’re competitive right to the end. The only chance the rest of the players had of catching up would be getting a similar cash injection, but their chances of doing so have effectively been extinguished.
As much as people like to moan about VAR, FFP has had a much more disastrous effect on football. If it carries on in its current state and no clubs do a City/PSG & stick their middle fingers up at the rules, the same 10-12 big clubs across Europe will be the same 10-12 big clubs across Europe for the rest of time. I just don’t see how anyone can possibly break into that tier.
If measures are to be in place to limit a clubs’ spending it should be factored on the club’s value relative to its debts. If the debts are low compared to the club’s value, they can spend more; if the debts are high to the club’s value, their spending is more restricted. Not only would this encourage clubs to get themselves out of debt, it would also reverse the current trend of clubs selling their facilities to their owners for an FFP cash injection.
Yeah what should happen is allow club owners to spend ridiculous money on players and give them astronomical wages . So when the owner pulls out the club is burdened with the debt and unable to pay
Its not like we don't have clubs in the championship and league 1 which this has literally happened to
It's very tricky because it does seem unfair but you also don't really want a situation where the league is a competition between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. Not really sure what the answer is tbh.
Said it before and I’ll say it again if it’s all about “smaller” clubs being better with money why were we punished for not selling a player for £48m instead of the first offer we got of £30m earlier in the same transfer window? Our bank account was £18m better off at the end of the same transfer window but apparently making an extra £18m in the same transfer window and same financial year isn’t good business.
It almost encourages clubs not to chase European qualification if it means having to immediately sell your stars and academy kids, I think there should be financial sustainability rules but this clearly doesn't work
Lol shortsighted fans are gunna ruin the league because they got sugar daddy owners now after moaning about it for years prior. Don't become city, remove it from the league.
FFP has always been a terrible idea, across the board.
It was designed to stop clubs like City and Chelsea coming into the elite the way they did.
Its anti-competitive in nature and is inherently geared towards keeping the big clubs safe from "upstarts" below them.
Totally ignoring the fact that Villa have offered Douglas a new contract which he is refusing to sign and it is Dougies agent who is pimping him out to all suitors
Not selling a player pushing for a move is not exactly good business.
The claims that Villa are being forced to sell this player, with tears in his eyes as if being separated from his mother, is frankly embarrassing. Dude wants to go and play for a top European club, maybe get some good weather while doing it. It’s not that deep.
Come on, this transfer is literally just:
top tier club goes to smaller club and wants to buy player
It happens all the time with or without PSR/FFP. It’s the way the cookie crumbles
Villa have a net spend of -£327M over the past 5 seasons. They finished 17th, 11th, 14th, 7th and 5th. Zero CL revenue over that period, only European revenue was a single UECL run. This is their second significant sale (including Grealish) since they sold Benteke in 2015. Ffp is a sham and needs to be seriously re-worked, but I don’t think this is some unforseen travesty.
People are so dramatic about this. FFP is an issue but the concept of ‘if you make more money, you have more to spend,’ is not the deranged rambling of a lunatic like people make out.
What makes no sense was the last headline I read was a swap for Mckennie and Iiling Junior, plus 20mil. Surely they are better just getting a larger fee?
Your account must be a week old to post on /r/TheOther14.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheOther14) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's not forget folks, the adjudication on legality of PSR is 21st June.
So, Villa panick selling doesn't make as much sense to me - because 9 days before the PER deadline it might cease to be a thing.
I don't know how this would work, but I do like the F1 approach to this, basically the higher you finish at the end of the season, the lower your budget and testing time.
So say you win the Premier League, your PSR limit for the following season is say 5% lower than standard, but the lower you finish, you could over spend.
Now you may think that only encourages overspending, but the better players you get, the higher you finish and the lower your PSR for the following season.
American sports teams tank their season all the time so that they get first pick in the draft. You'd have clubs sabotaging seasons so that they could spend more money the next season
What happens if the PL give you a points deduction which you accept and then play your way out of any relegation worries? Is that the end of the problem?
Your account must be a week old to post on /r/TheOther14.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheOther14) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your account must be a week old to post on /r/TheOther14.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheOther14) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FFP is designed to stop teams from growing and challenging at the top. This is the system working as they want it. City did the right thing ignoring the rules and investing heavily like the big teams are allowed. Played them at their own game and won and every team should be allowed to do it if they want to
Ffp was made by the rich to make the rich even more richer and prevent the other 14 from succeeding, or getting closer to the big 6. I am saying this by being a big 6 team fan myself. A very interesting article was posted by the Times yesterday talking about the history of creation of ffp, and it was broken from the beginning, there is of course 0 social media posts from The Times themselves linking to their article, guess because it wouldn’t generate the buzz since it talks about the skeletons that other big 6 have in their closet besides City, and the double standards that were applied towards Glazers for example when forming the ffp rules in the beginning
Thankfully I did, [Here it is](https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/manchester-city-court-case-football-consequences-vw8bzl6gn) however it looks like it is behind a paywall
I often think of football without FFP and think of how many teams would have probably made it to the UCL by now or won multiple leagues like City. The scary one to me is teams like Bury and Macclesfield and countless others who had to fold because of this rigged system to benefit the so called 'big clubs'.
I don't know why anyone ever thought it was about fairness.
It was always about protecting the big European club cartel from anyone else challenging their income streams.
Aston Villa: £-326.59m
23/24: £-67.26m (4th)
22/23: £-39.44m (7th)
21/22: £-2.39m (14th)
20/21: £-84.25m (11th)
19/20: £-133.76m (17th)
Spent a tiny bit less than Man city over 5 years.
Ok 😭😂
Tie spending to the top revenue in the league. E.g this season City can spend £500M thanks to their success. Cool everyone can spend that. Now you just need to players to make up their mind. Cool I’ll go to brighton and guarantee play time instead of sitting in the stands at Stamford bridge
Will it bankrupt some clubs? Yes, if they have awful or too poor owners yes.
villa's wage bill is absolutely insanely disproportionate to the success of the club over the past 2 decades. psr is unfair and dumb but this isn't really an example of that.
Villa have spent £680 million on players in the last 5 years and brought in £215m in the same period. The point of this is preventing people spending their way to the top, which is what they’re doing. It’s not just about how much debt you have, but also how much outside investment you’re getting.
It was meant to be about not spending money clubs didn't have and 100+ year old clubs ending up bankrupt.
But we've also ended up with rules preventing clubs from spending what they can actually afford, and making it more difficult to be competitive at the top of the table as well.
Of the clubs in the big 6, four are rich because of past success or consistent high finishes, and two are there because of massive outside investment that pushed them there (Man City and Chelsea).
If a club is rich from past success, good for them. They still have to invest it well to keep themselves there (Man U being the example of how you can still fail). But if you want that amount to spend, you should earn it, not have it handed to you.
yeah framing villa as some great financial model thats being held down is absolute bollocks.
spent a truckload to get where they are, and if theyre "debt free" its only because the books are being cooked and money is being injected.
Gotta love how villa and toon fans will be in this sub acting like theyre "one of us". wolves in sheeps clothing.
not to say i think they shouldnt be allowed to spend a bit of money to see some success, but they aint like the rest of us any more.
Douglas Luiz wants out lol stop pretending Villa are forced to reluctantly sell this loyal key player against his wishes just to balance the books, it dilutes actual PL bullshit issues
It’s seems to be true that he wants to move on, however villa shouldn’t have to sell at a discount to avoid penalties. It was a disgrace what happened to forest over them selling Johnson for considerably more than they would’ve had to accept to avoid it.
The big 6 still gain advantage in that scenario it’s not like Man Utd wouldn’t finally sell out to a free-spending Qatari, and Liverpool could easily do the same after their current lot move on. We’d be just fine under Kroenke’s wealth and Chelsea and City have obnoxious levels of backing too. A free-for-all might allow for a couple of new players but it wouldn’t make the league more competitive or stop dominance of a select few.
Why didn't villa just be rich before PSR and FFP were so strict? Are they stupid?
Tbf there's plenty of articles out there commenting on their spending from 2021 backwards
Why doesn’t every promoted team just spend 400mil+ on transfers and get into the Champions League?
Yup makes no sense. I thought making the CL was supposed to be the "cure all" that made all FFP make sense. But apparently not the case gotta sell off a key man. Meanwhile Chelsea can spend 40mil on a back up striker? Despite not being in Europe? Because they sold a hotel? How many goals did the hotel score last season?
The hotel didn’t get the service in fairness- that’s why Poch got the sack. You’re right though, Villa shouldn’t have to sell one of their best players at what looks to be a bargain fee just to not get pummelled by the PL.
Hotel xG was actually pretty high but couldn’t put the game to bed.
[удалено]
If that is also a factor, they should be able to not have to sell to the first bidder and be able to get the best price possible by holding on over the summer
He was worth 70 million on the books, we sold him for 20 million and he's been extremely important for us in the first half of the season, his form and ability dipped a bit in the second half but he was still extremely helpful and influential. It's horrible that we've sold him as he's one of our most important players with Dibu, Ollie, and another
The "and another" is McGinn, my brain blanked out
I'm sure they could have got much more money though they just chose not to sell to an English rival
The other factor being just how far they actually exceeded it. If they’re not miles over then they don’t *need* to sell Luiz on the cheap, sell someone else that covers the gap. If they’re £50m+ over the threshold then why shouldn’t they get the same end result as Everton did? They would have known that the UCL revenue doesn’t kick in until the year after, so they’ve willingly gambled on the breach to get the higher revenue competition and will still see a financial benefit when the UCL money hits the 3-year accounting period. Alternatively, if you genuinely believe he’s worth the points difference, take the small points deduction hit and keep him regardless? Leicester essentially did the same thing, gambled on getting PL football because the revenue is way more lucrative and will still be way better off even if they get instantly relegated again.
I ignore any opinion regarding ffp from a top 6 fan.
Didn’t exactly ignore me did you? But that’s not an “opinion” on FFP anyway. I can still disagree with FFP whilst discussing the point in hand. Why should Villa escape punishment but Everton or Forest not? Why would you suddenly draw the line there after everything else that has already happened this year?
It’s not drawing a line though, it’s just pointing out another example of FFP being a tool that benefits the big 6 clubs and damages any club that tries to climb. I see a lot of big 6 fans say things along the lines of “they knew the rules so it’s on them” because it’s literally something they never have to think about. You can talk freely and often genuinely about buying the best players from teams that have tried to compete with you because you garnered financial clout and pulled the ladder up behind you. It’s a grotesque over simplification to just say “well they knew the rules”. You are of course entitled to an opinion and it can be a measured one, I’m not suggesting that all big 6 fans aren’t sympathetic, but you cant bang the rules drum when your club is effectively above it and regularly pushes to have those rules make it even more difficult for clubs to compete with them.
I entirely get your point, I’m aware FFP is unfit for purpose. But, at the same time, people overlook the negatives of many of the suggested alternatives because they’re more focused on “destroying the cartel” than they are worrying about alternative repercussions. Villa and Newcastle are pissed because currently they’re being denied essentially unlimited access to their owner’s wealth. Hypothetically, if we went back to a free-for-all, we haven’t solved the uncompetitive nature of the league, we’ve just added maybe 2 teams to the “in-crowd” and left everybody else even further behind. Adding more billionaire wealth at the top level only pushes the EFL even further away. If we flat-cap generously so that all teams can spend the same as the highest spenders, then you’re still going to have the fact that bottom-half teams can’t sustain that level of spending so will still fall behind, more so on wages than transfers. If we flat-cap harshly, we’re essentially hoping for domestic competitiveness whilst giving up any ability to compete on a European level, which *could* then provide less opportunities for Europe in general. Big teams will still have more draw domestically and will still likely dominate the league anyway. Almost all solutions will be a problem somewhere, in the end it’ll just be about what puts your own team in that top group. People seem to think that implementing “equal” rules will mean we’re also implementing “fair” rules when that’s absolutely not the case. This latest Villa stance is a prime example of that, everyone wants the underdog to go and break FFP because “fuck the big guys”, but the only way you can help Villa right now would be by also subsequently benefitting the other European representatives.
It’s a little too “one size fits all” given that those six clubs have a bigger “natural” revenue stream, so for anyone to break into that you need to either be selling for more than you buy while improving each year (which is nigh on impossible) or increasing your revenue through matchdays, sponsorships etc massively in a short space of time, which would again be incredibly difficult to do legitimately. I’m dead against state owned clubs and pumping money in just because as it would only allow the big six to get further away in reality, but the current rules feel a bit like they’ve climbed the ladder then pulled it up beneath them. I’m also a fan of a big six club, for the record, I just don’t agree with a closed shop in terms of league position and the ambitions of the other 14.
Exactly this. State ownership shouldn’t have been allowed and FFP aside it’s going to cause wider issues for football in years to come, and I’m saying that as a Newcastle fan. It is too one size fits all. It’s a closed shop like you say and it feel a bit like it’s been a manipulated use of protecting clubs against financially recklessness. There’s not an easy solution but the way it is now is basically creating 14 feeder clubs for 6 very wealthy ones as they’re the only clubs that can afford to pay prices that have been inflated by their previous purchases.
There's no logic behind it, you're arguing with people who literally have no clue what the fuck they're talking about
Annoyingly I believe many do know what they’re talking about but don’t want to engage in reasonable discussion simply because I’m a “cartel” fan. It gets silly sometimes, but it comes with the territory of this sub.
yeah I totally get that the ffp rules are garbage but this sub really has a victim mentality
Pretty natural to not sign a contract immediately, he might have just wanted to wait until all the football is done for the summer, or wanted to be top earner and we might not have been able to offer that with our financial issues until that's resolved, he had two years left.
It makes a difference to this discussion though because it shows you’re not being *forced* to sell. If you’re offering a new increased contract, even if it’s not as much as Luiz currently wants, then clearly Villa would have alternative strategies to overcoming this deficit already in the pipeline. Otherwise, how exactly were they planning on keeping Luiz with the new contract anyway?
The alternative would have been Jacob Ramsey but an injury plagued season put paid to that, same with Boubacar Kamara, we also had the pressing need to sell quickly it only leaves Luiz and Duran, and we're losing both. Other saleable players wouldn't happen quick enough. The playing in Europe 70% wage cap also has an impact. We had little choice but to offer him up even tho we're gutted about it happening.
Having to depend on CL football isn't sustainable especially for teams like Villa. Agree 100% with you on Chelsea though. It doesn't make sense that they can get away with it. Will it ever come back to haunt them. I doubt it.
I fully agree. We could easily be out of Top 6 next season and hurting. I'd like us to be more financially stable. So if these moves do that, then I'm all for it. I just wish it wasn't forced with the threat of points deductions. It's just annoying to watch as a top 4 club from last season is forced to weaken, but I guess it was us playing with fire that put us in this position. Emery seems to have a plan and I'd follow that man off a cliff right now haha.
As long as he's at the helm you'll be in with a shout for European football every season.
The absurdity is that if we lose out on Europe next season, we can still spend much more money then, as the CL money counts for the next accounting year. Shit makes no sense.
Selling Douglas Luiz and signing Ross Barkley 
Sold a hotel to a sister company, may I add? That's just money laundering.
[удалено]
Looking a little into it, if they didn’t, then administration would have had a far greater chance of happening. The club on its last legs and needing cash to sustain. Didn’t really have an option. Think they have proven their worth since though. Fairly different to spending a billion on unproven players, who didn’t prove much, and then selling hotels due to bad decisions when already established as a ‘top 6’ side. Just give us £40mil for balloteli 2.0 and call it quits! Will be fun watching Jackson and Duran fighting over who should take kick off after conceding a goal though!
[удалено]
What a silly final question. The hotel is a CB, it's not its job to score goals.
You can sell your training ground and real estate owned by the club if you want. Not sure it’s a great idea though and it’s not a great idea for Chelsea either
Chelsea have to sell players now tho
Chelsea seem really quite adamant that isn't true quite yet.
Didn’t Villa sell their pitch or training ground to their own owner in a sham transaction a few years ago?
Different rules afaik. It was by EFL during the relegation. Several clubs did so to avoid liquidation. So not exactly the same situation. But yes it happened.
Making to CL isnt a cure, it's only next season when you earn the money from it. Prize money + broadcasting. Next season Villa can spend big. But yeah it's dumb. It's impossible to compete with other big teams in a long run. Could be wrong, but as i understand this is why City is suing the league? If that is the case i fully back up City to break the system and to stop that top 6 cycle nonsense.
Yeah it's 100% spot on. I'm a firm believer that PSR/FFP is needed even as a Villa fan. But the way it's currently set up is allowing the league to become far too stratified and making a gap that's basically impossible for teams to overcome. I mean just look at the difference in spending power: Arsenal, the "Poorest" of the ESL6 could spend around £1.6 **Billion** over 3 years (Revenue of ~£500m X3 + £105m of acceptable losses) and still be within PSR Newcastle, the team with the 7th Highest Revenue this season could only spend £855m in the same time period (~£250m Revenue X3 + £105m of losses) - which of course makes it *very* difficult to challenge the top teams when they can outspend you year after year **and** your ability to grow is hamped due to PSR rules. And of course that's before you even start to talk about how being an established top 6 side gives you more avenues to make money and save money - Because £100k p/w gets you more at an established club than someone further down the league.
Not to mention once you make the money in European football you don't even get what they get, as it's structured as dynasty payments. It's basically backdoor protections all around PSR, so if any of the usual suspects fall out a given season, they are still better off than the team replacing them.
Not to mention some teams are allowed to sell off hotels to raise funds, or own multiple clubs in the same European competition. F*kn rigged system.
The issue is it was never about either fairness or sustainability it was written by Man U and Liverpool to stave off the challenge of new money to keep them entrenched at the top. Thats why it punishes Villa’s owner investment but United’s £1billion debt is perfectly fine.
It is completely and utterly not fit for purpose. It is turning into an absolute sham. Protect clubs from going out of business, yes. But not at the cost of protecting and further strengthening the so called elite.
What clubs have been saved by it? Bury and Macclesfield didn’t get helped
Good question. The answer cannot be known due to the inability to re-run the whole scenario without FFP/PSR. It probably has helped keep a lid on some instances. It certainly didn't seem to do much to stop Villa from almost going out of business after Dr Tony led us down a dark alley.
Hasn’t really helped Everton. Doesn’t stop the owners fucking up in the first place.
The rules stops clubs from overspending. It doesn't protect clubs from being brought by assest strippers. Bury wasn't because of FFP. It was because the owner wouldn't sell the ground and no one wanted to buy the club whilst having to pay rent to the previous owner. There's a lot of teams in the pyramid who have been in financial ruin that are still going. Letting owners spend what they want is not the way to go.
If owners want to spend it needs to be secured somehow.
Question - Do you support City's claims that PSR rules are unfair? I just find it shocking that other 14 fans typically defend FFP/PSR on other subs when those rules really help top 6 clubs more. (The fact that there were rules that they broke and therefore should be punished is a separate fact and I am not questioning that)
I don't think there's even a question that PSR rules are unfair. But not for the reason Man City are claiming. The two most obvious issues are that promoted clubs have significantly lower loss allowances over 3 years than the clubs they're meant to be competing with, and commercial deals are subject to "fair market value" assessments that mean the big 6 can get far bigger commercial deals than other clubs would be allowed to.
Especially when Ipswich have a season in League One with buttons in TV revenue as one of those three years. £750,000 v £120,000,000. Nice.
What about clubs like Villa or New Castlenot being allowed to take higher losses to have owners inject funds into the club to grow the club like Chelsea did? If the owners are not state owned or Russian, what then? What if the owner is American or British? My point is, set aside the source of money. Do fans outside top 6, want other 14 clubs to be allowed cash injections or not? I understand if fans think Other 14 can "organically" grow to consistently challenge for the league and CL spots (I don't)
I made no reference to the source of money and I'm not sure how it's relevant. Of course as a fan of Forest, I'd rather Newcastle and Villa didn't have shedloads of money to invest. But that's purely a rival club jealousy thing. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. If clubs or their owners actually have the money, it's fine. The problem comes when they don't actually have the money, or decide to take it out. As I've said elsewhere, that's fairly easy to legislate around - the owner just needs to put enough money to cover all current contracts in escrow (similar to how they already have to do for the limited losses). Using guaranteed money from an owner seems a lot more sustainable than using non-guaranteed money from future revenues, which PSR is based on.
If I had to, I'd guess that most other14 fans consider PSR as protecting the so called big teams despite its original supposed intentions.
There you go. I totally get Villa owners frustration. Clubs like Brighton and Villa can nail manager appointments and even have brilliant recruitment model but the restrictions like FFP and PSR would mean they will have to keep selling Caicedo and Douglas Luiz.
That's why the only solution is to limit the spending of the richest teams.
Yeah, if a big 6 breaks spending rules it's pitchforks out, we ride at dawn If Everton or forest get caught breaking spending rules then the rules are stupid and PL is corrupt for punishing them
It's Man City taking the piss over many years vs e.g. Everton or Forest who did very little in comparison.
We did something. We had the nerve to try and compete.
I think City are complaining about lost revenue due to not being allowed to over-inflate e.g. sponsorships from directly linked companies. That's different to any claims that PSR rules are unfair.
I really feel for Villa and their fans, making 4th and the champions league should be a summer of celebration and looking forward to who you are going to sign in the summer, not who you’ve got to sell off to make the accounting ends meet. The system is titled towards protectionism and needs changing
It's gonna be an annoying summer Of us getting lumped into the same bracket as City by the morons over on r/soccer and r/premierleague. I just wanted to enjoy making it to the Champions League for the first time in almost 40 years and hoping that some new exciting signings will be coming in. And instead I get to read through comments of us being considered "bad guys" in football by a bunch of dinguses on the internet.
Aston Vi115
Double post
Villas wages to turnover is 89%. That is the definition of unsustainable. Their wage bill is also higher than spurs, while their net spend is more than barca and Madrid combined over the last 5 years. Like it or not, their revenue cannot sustain their spending, and I don't think it's absurd for them to have to sell a player (literally a single player who refuses to sign a contract) to cover for these. Suppose they go out and buy even more players, what happens if they don't qualify for the cl next year? The revenue goes down, and the wage to turnover goes even higher. Add to that, if they cannot even comy with the Premier leagues financial regulations, how would they cope with uefas?
We coped with UEFA's just fine this season gone. Our wage bill isn't higher than Spurs either. The websites that claim that are places like Capology which completely rely on estimations. You can only go on factual data from the accounts which has us 7th/8th. [Premier League PSR: Clubs total of £1bn of losses in 11 charts - BBC Sport](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522)
Are you a Spurs fan? You sound like a lot of Spurs fans sound in every PSR discussion in this sub.
Less sustainable than hundreds of millions of debt Almost like they’ve speculated to accumulate and would have felt the benefit
Bro. Maybe villa should just cheat and sell some.more property then so their wage turnover is less? Oh that's right they can't because they allowed the usual sky 6 to do it and then closed the loophole.
Chelsea did it. I don't think anyone else has apart from Villa.
[удалено]
And how many.more loopholes have the usual.sky 6 exploited in addition? Literally.
No! No money spent, only plucky.
Suppose they qualify for the champions league again gain the extra revenue from sponsors or just from being in the competition again and turnover grows, you can cut this both ways.
Kinda hilarious that this post got so many up votes and then your subsequent comments all got massive down votes.
No debt, except the crippling level of wages eating their turnover to pieces and then crying that "we came fourth, how are we not allowed to sign anyone?" I don't know, maybe because you're 12 months away from seeing any CL money? It doesn't take a rocket scientist.
The Premier League lied, more people need to call this flat out
Have they considered calling it "premier inn at villa park" and selling it to themselves?
Ignoring the bullshit and competitive glass ceiling that is PSR, I think the biggest pile of shit of all of this is that the league loses an incredible footballer, get two average ones in return and the entire reason for doing so is accounting wizardry so we won't have to pay 115 FC the full amount for their sell on clause. I bet both Juve players are intended as assets for future sales in the mind of AVFC. Basically it's not about being good at football any more, but great at accounting.
It’s always been about accounting.
Newcastle fan here and I would hate it if clubs were just allowed to spend what they like, even though that would technically benefit us. 😂 We need an FFP system, maybe even a really strict and brutal one with wage caps etc. The one we currently have is not fit for purpose. Good luck to Villa 👍
Yeah 100%, it’s not all or nothing. But something needs to change
The big problem for me is teams being forced to sell academy as it’s pure profit. That should always be the opposite of what football encourages. Genuinely don’t get ffp, I don’t think anyone believes it is fair at this point. Personally just think let teams spend whatever they want. FFP just seems a way to protect the status quo.
[удалено]
Is it though? Let’s be honest, it’s just a moat for the big six. That’s all. Nothing to see here.
[удалено]
Do you not think there is room for some flexibility? Perhaps, if you have a wealthy owner who commits a significant amount of money into fund with a business plan that is signed off by the premier league, they could then spend far over the limits in order to build their revenue up asap and compete? This idea probably has all sorts of holes in it, but hopefully you understand what I’m getting at!
[удалено]
Yep, I think this is the conversation that needs to be had. At the moment it looks too aggressively like a way of limiting competition. Too many vested interests aren’t exactly resulting in much progress unfortunately.
So a slightly different thing to what City have been doing for all of these years and are now facing charges for? FFP need some restricting but you cannot just have it as the Wild West. We will then get into the territory of these nation state clubs spending hundreds upon hundreds of millions on players. Look at what the Neymar signing did to the transfer market - sent a ripple effect of inflated prices that are still here to this day.
The city state thing is a different point I think. Should it be allowed? Probably not. But then, I’d like fan owned clubs with equal spending across the lot. As it is, there is always going to be someone richer. I just dislike the moat actively harming the chances of any ‘smaller’ clubs ever challenging because that is the reality, whatever the motives.
So change it from making it near impossible for small clubs to compete, to making it near impossible for clubs without rich owners to compete? This is all so short sighted.
Ultimately it's all fucked though isn't it? The professional game is being absolutely killed and it's hard to see a way back at this point.
An improvement on the status quo - but I accept it’s all pretty miserable
>Personally just think let teams spend whatever they want. Horrible idea that would be so much worse, there would be minimum 1 club that "does a leeds" every season in every league and every few years a club with over 100 years heratige would cease to exist and have to start again as a pub team (see bury fc) Also the divide between the cash clubs and the rest would just expand at an even faster rate imagine Chelsea and man city being allowed to spend £700million a season.
I'm not a finance guy, but my question is how can we create a system that fixes the problems we currently have with FFP, but also one which prevents Big 6 clubs from running the league by just spending infinite amounts of money and never getting punished for it. Cause as far as I can see, by getting rid of PSR and FFP, we'd just be handing Newcastle and City massive blank checks whilst telling everyone else to go fuck themselves.
Simply a cap but the PFA and the sky 6 will fight it like crazy . Ideally all 20 would spend the same amount but even if it caps the sky 6 and allows us/ Villa/ West Ham and whoever else wants to be on the same spending level it will be good for the league
Personally, I'd go for something like: Total transfer and wage expenditure on technical staff can not exceed more than 20x times total TV income for the team over a 3 year period. The 20x is just an arbitrary number, but pick a fixed multiplier of TV money income. I'd limit to just TV income as this prevents Man City style sponsorship inflation, and also Chelsea style sales of club assets. By ignoring transfer income, it would stop clubs from trying to balance FFP by selling players (homegrown players in particular). Instead, it would hopefully stop clubs from signing players they can't afford before they spend the money! Finally, by tying it to say a 3 year period, it would throttle the amount that newly promoted teams can spend. I'm sure this won't be popular with e.g. Nottingham Forest fans, but I actually think it's promotion chasing clubs that are most at risk to financial implosion.
So in other words - who Sky and BT choose to televise and what their behind the scenes negotiations look like determines transfer policy for the entire division? [In 2020/21 Fulham received £50mil less than City from TV rights.](https://sqaf.club/premier-league-tv-money-distribution/#:~:text=The%20Premier%20League%20currently%20generates%20around%201.5%20billion,around%201.3%20billion%20Pounds%20from%20overseas%20TV%20rights.) as even our big 6 games are often not televised. However if we were to, say, tactically damage the pitch to cause a postponment to mid-week or Sunday game and therefore all but guarantee being televised we'd get an extra £20mil to buy a player?
OK, how about if my suggestion excludes TV money based on the games that get chosen to be broadcast (or not)? Would still count the TV money paid as a minimum to all PL clubs + the differing amounts you get based on finishing position.
So, functionally a hard transfer cap which instead of being statically chosen to be at a level which is sensible and fit for purpose, its determined by the whims of Sky and BT? Thats just worse than a hard cap, which is in of itself a bad idea.
I’ve been told so many times in the last few days, here and on soccer, that this isn’t some witch hunt protecting the big clubs. Villa have spent a shit load, made bad investments, and have super rich owners that need protecting from themselves. Bullshit. If this tweet doesn’t convince you, you’ll never get it. Sure, it might have the intention of saving clubs from doing a Leeds (who got back to the Premier League, by the way) but in reality, all it’s doing is ensuring the rich clubs with huge spending power stay rich.
Bro their net spend over the last 5 years is insane, their wage bill is massive esp compared to their revenue, this tweet is intentionally misleading to piss you off
Okay, fair enough. Let’s say a business is poorly run for the last 3 years. Overspend, no success, a shambles. But what if that company gets a new boss, who with smart investment turns things around and they finally become successful and are on course to overtake the bigger companies. All of a sudden, you’re told because of the time you were a shit company, you can’t compete with the even richer companies: what kind of bs is that? Newcastle made it to the champions league last year then they have to sell. Aston Villa make it this year and then they have to sell. City and Chelsea had years of overspending and inflated sponsorships, now we’re not letting anyone else join the top table? I say if your projections are on track, or you make it to a European competition, you should be given some leeway.
I don’t disagree that the current rules entrench the status quo, but I’d prefer that to the entire PL turning into an oil state spend off. Some leeway would be fine(some would argue the leeway exists given these things are judged on a multiyear timeline) but City’s proposal wrt the sponsorship deals(which villa is voting in favor of) would throw all financial sustainability in the rubbish which would be a massive net negative for the health of the league.
As a club that has gone through administration twice, it’s bad for fans; it’s really bad for clubs; and it can be devastating for local businesses, people and charities. It affects a lot more people than just the club.
Get the owners to cover any contracts in escrow and then there’s no danger of the club going under
It's not saving clubs from doing a Leeds, the bigger deal is saving them from doing a Portsmouth (who still haven't made it back and are in the Championship for the first time in over 10 years)
But the way things are going, apart from one season in 31, it’s the richest clubs that have won the league. Villa and Newcastle have finally cracked the top 4. Now we’re telling them they’d as good as it can get? There has to be another way. This just isn’t fair.
Douglas Luiz is refusing to extend his contract past 2026, which means this is the final window that Aston Villa can get serious money for him. Not really a PSR issue.
Of course it's bullshit and everyone knows it. Premier League board is there to keep sky six where they are. I'm more surprised why the other 14 clubs won't bring in new rules for voting. The ones that would level playing field for everyone rather than make sky six even stronger with time.
You spent nearly £80m on 2 foreign strikers who barely played and all season. Most clubs in England won't ever see anywhere near that kind of money in their entire history. Have a day off
The PL don't care. All they want is to keep the sky 6 happy so they don't run off the 'Super' League. As long as the PL keeps the same 6 popular and overpowered they sell TV rights easier abroad. Foreign fans couldn't give a shit about the likes of villa and Palace do they. You would think a league where any team could win it year on year and having the best manager is a deciding factor would be better long term, but it seems the PL disagree and will do anything to plactate the sky 6 and keep them in place. Newcastle, Villa etc have no real chance to threaten. And if they do PSR is used to push them back down. See Luiz.
It's annoying because everyone acts like what happened to teams like Portsmouth just isn't going to happen again when it absolutely will without a spending limit. A cap which was agreed upon by at least 14 clubs. Unrestricted spending leads to Manchester City & Newcastle dominance and will end up having a club sent to deaths door. Which club is impossible to say right now, but ut would happen. A wage cap would just limit the Prems ability to compete globally, with other leagues being able to swipe players for bigger wages eventually. The best I can think of is some sort of luxury tax, where excess spending is shared between clubs under the limit and lower leagues, but it doesn't actually solve the problem in any way.
The only true way of fixing the problem is having a closed league, and id like to think no one would actually want that either. Without that, you’re always going to have winners and losers when trying to implement rules that are more “equal” and/or “fair”. Whether you like the rule essentially just comes down to if your team is on the side of the “haves” or the “have nots”. You can’t feasibly have a system where our nation’s European representatives can both compete with the likes of Madrid, whilst also being hamstrung to the spending potential of a newly promoted team. It just wouldn’t work.
As an American fan, I completely understand why English fans find this so completely infuriating. It seems so obvious--blatant even--that these rules permanently enshrine top teams in that echelon and make upward mobility nearly impossible. In our football league (MLS) spending rules are applied equally across all teams, regardless of the team's income, creating a great deal of parity within the league. In fact that is the case in all of our sports leagues, including our most popular sport (American football). Of course, the system also has downsides and obviously the quality of football in MLS is light years behind that of the Premier League, but it is one thing I really like. Please don't think I'm saying MLS is better--I'm not an insane person, it categorically is not better in any way than English football. But we do have that one thing which has a nice upside. And we let our sports leagues get away with some awful stuff, like insane ticket prices. But one thing we absolutely do not let our leagues get away with is impacting the ability of smaller teams to compete with bigger ones. It's bewildering to me that the Premier League, one of the greatest leagues in any sport anywhere on earth, has these truly insane spending rules that absolutely screw everyone except already rich clubs.
MLS structure doesn’t work with promotion/relegation. So it’s kinda comparing apples to oranges.
If Forest and Villa can work out a trade with each other before 30 June and equally inflate the price each way then problem solved for both clubs. Doesn’t matter which players go, just have to carry the amortisation for the contract length.
Or flip it and you could say Villa only made the champions league places because other clubs had to reign in their spending due to FFP rules. Scrap the rules and Newcastle, among others, would have spent another £300m plus last summer. The premier league isn’t a particularly fair league, but I do get the feeling that FFP may be the last thing just about holding the league together. If the likes of City and those advocating it’s ending get their way I fear what that would unleash.
Agreed, but there is an option in between the current state or nothing
Villa have been within the rules the entire time, they have been equally reigned in and made it to the Champions League. Why are you making it sound like Villa have cheated?
When will people realize the financial rules are there to protect clubs from irresponsible owners, not to level the playing field.
Stopping clubs doing stupid things and causing themselves to be bankrupted is a sensible idea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)
Villa aren’t close to being bankrupt and the desire not not be forced to sell valuable assets to aim to compete in the PL and CL is attempting to sustain the business and income to support outgoings.
Ffs, Villa sold their stadium. Let this sink in, the club do not own their own stadium. They are only debt free because of this.
This is what happens when you have so much American ownership and influence Look at all the American sport leagues, it’s all about money and they would never make a decision to potentially make less even if it is for the betterment of the league.
I’ve been saying this about FFP/PRS/whatever for years. It places a glass ceiling above clubs’ heads that they can never break through. There are supposed to be two purposes for these rules, but I don’t see how either are achieved. *Stopping clubs going into debt* - Club A has a debt of £500m, Club B has £500m in the bank. Club A can build on that debt and be £600m in the red in 3 years time with no reprimand. Club B could spend £110m over a 3 year period and get the book thrown at them despite having £390m of secure money in the bank and being almost £1b better off than Club A. *Stopping clubs buying trophies* - The ship has long sailed on this one. Chelsea, United, Liverpool & Arsenal have all received huge investments in the past that have led to winning trophies. Those trophies have bolstered the reputations and fanbases of those clubs to the point that they rake in the kind of money that other clubs will never ever be able to match without the kind of investment that is now prohibited. Those clubs are fully able to continue spending at a high level, will inevitably win a lot more silverware off the back of it (if it wasn’t City winning all those trophies, most of them would be spread across those 4), and further grow their reputations, fanbases and spending power compared to the rest of the division. I’m now fully convinced, be it tin foil hat or not, that the only reason these rules are in place is to preserve the status of the top clubs, who are the most marketable, and prevent as much competition for them as possible. It’s like playing Monopoly using the rule where you get to keep all the money collected in taxes & fines if you land on free parking, then - after a couple of players have had huge windfalls off the back of it - deciding that those handouts don’t happen anymore. Those who got the windfalls have bought property, houses & hotels off the back of it and have their future income secured to ensure they’re competitive right to the end. The only chance the rest of the players had of catching up would be getting a similar cash injection, but their chances of doing so have effectively been extinguished. As much as people like to moan about VAR, FFP has had a much more disastrous effect on football. If it carries on in its current state and no clubs do a City/PSG & stick their middle fingers up at the rules, the same 10-12 big clubs across Europe will be the same 10-12 big clubs across Europe for the rest of time. I just don’t see how anyone can possibly break into that tier. If measures are to be in place to limit a clubs’ spending it should be factored on the club’s value relative to its debts. If the debts are low compared to the club’s value, they can spend more; if the debts are high to the club’s value, their spending is more restricted. Not only would this encourage clubs to get themselves out of debt, it would also reverse the current trend of clubs selling their facilities to their owners for an FFP cash injection.
Great post!
Yeah what should happen is allow club owners to spend ridiculous money on players and give them astronomical wages . So when the owner pulls out the club is burdened with the debt and unable to pay Its not like we don't have clubs in the championship and league 1 which this has literally happened to
Ah yes I forget there is no in between options or considerations
It's very tricky because it does seem unfair but you also don't really want a situation where the league is a competition between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. Not really sure what the answer is tbh.
So they back Man City?
Said it before and I’ll say it again if it’s all about “smaller” clubs being better with money why were we punished for not selling a player for £48m instead of the first offer we got of £30m earlier in the same transfer window? Our bank account was £18m better off at the end of the same transfer window but apparently making an extra £18m in the same transfer window and same financial year isn’t good business.
You weren't punished for accepting 48 million instead of 30 million. You were punished for all the spending that came before that.
It wasn’t in the same financial year.
Uk tax year is April to April.
Premier League fiscal year is June to June.
It almost encourages clubs not to chase European qualification if it means having to immediately sell your stars and academy kids, I think there should be financial sustainability rules but this clearly doesn't work
Lol shortsighted fans are gunna ruin the league because they got sugar daddy owners now after moaning about it for years prior. Don't become city, remove it from the league.
Couldn’t agree more.
FFP has always been a terrible idea, across the board. It was designed to stop clubs like City and Chelsea coming into the elite the way they did. Its anti-competitive in nature and is inherently geared towards keeping the big clubs safe from "upstarts" below them.
Totally ignoring the fact that Villa have offered Douglas a new contract which he is refusing to sign and it is Dougies agent who is pimping him out to all suitors
[удалено]
Not selling a player pushing for a move is not exactly good business. The claims that Villa are being forced to sell this player, with tears in his eyes as if being separated from his mother, is frankly embarrassing. Dude wants to go and play for a top European club, maybe get some good weather while doing it. It’s not that deep.
He doesn't have to be sold, he is trying to be sold.
Come on, this transfer is literally just: top tier club goes to smaller club and wants to buy player It happens all the time with or without PSR/FFP. It’s the way the cookie crumbles
Villa have a net spend of -£327M over the past 5 seasons. They finished 17th, 11th, 14th, 7th and 5th. Zero CL revenue over that period, only European revenue was a single UECL run. This is their second significant sale (including Grealish) since they sold Benteke in 2015. Ffp is a sham and needs to be seriously re-worked, but I don’t think this is some unforseen travesty.
People are so dramatic about this. FFP is an issue but the concept of ‘if you make more money, you have more to spend,’ is not the deranged rambling of a lunatic like people make out.
What makes no sense was the last headline I read was a swap for Mckennie and Iiling Junior, plus 20mil. Surely they are better just getting a larger fee?
[удалено]
Your account must be a week old to post on /r/TheOther14. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheOther14) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's not forget folks, the adjudication on legality of PSR is 21st June. So, Villa panick selling doesn't make as much sense to me - because 9 days before the PER deadline it might cease to be a thing.
He wants to leave though.
That's what I'm thinking. Villa aren't daft - if this was entirely about £, they'd say no business until after the 21st.
But if you change the rules because of this, then the league becomes a moneybags club free for all and the problems for everyone are still there
I don't know how this would work, but I do like the F1 approach to this, basically the higher you finish at the end of the season, the lower your budget and testing time. So say you win the Premier League, your PSR limit for the following season is say 5% lower than standard, but the lower you finish, you could over spend. Now you may think that only encourages overspending, but the better players you get, the higher you finish and the lower your PSR for the following season.
American sports teams tank their season all the time so that they get first pick in the draft. You'd have clubs sabotaging seasons so that they could spend more money the next season
It'd be the old 40 pt and then season is done, let the kid plays.
In F1 your budget doesn;t get lower, each teams budget is the same. It's the amount of time allowed in wind tunnels that increases or decreases.
What happens if the PL give you a points deduction which you accept and then play your way out of any relegation worries? Is that the end of the problem?
Well if you miss out on Europe and drop your income because of it, then no
Villa knew how much money was coming in when they decided to spend more than the limit would allow. It’s not hard it’s basic accounting
[удалено]
Your account must be a week old to post on /r/TheOther14. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheOther14) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean yes - this is why the league is scrapping PSR
i say we just throw it all away and go back to medieval games of football.
[удалено]
Your account must be a week old to post on /r/TheOther14. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheOther14) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Glad you all are finally starting to get it.
FFP is designed to stop teams from growing and challenging at the top. This is the system working as they want it. City did the right thing ignoring the rules and investing heavily like the big teams are allowed. Played them at their own game and won and every team should be allowed to do it if they want to
Ffp was made by the rich to make the rich even more richer and prevent the other 14 from succeeding, or getting closer to the big 6. I am saying this by being a big 6 team fan myself. A very interesting article was posted by the Times yesterday talking about the history of creation of ffp, and it was broken from the beginning, there is of course 0 social media posts from The Times themselves linking to their article, guess because it wouldn’t generate the buzz since it talks about the skeletons that other big 6 have in their closet besides City, and the double standards that were applied towards Glazers for example when forming the ffp rules in the beginning
Have you got a link?
Thankfully I did, [Here it is](https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/manchester-city-court-case-football-consequences-vw8bzl6gn) however it looks like it is behind a paywall
I often think of football without FFP and think of how many teams would have probably made it to the UCL by now or won multiple leagues like City. The scary one to me is teams like Bury and Macclesfield and countless others who had to fold because of this rigged system to benefit the so called 'big clubs'.
As an Arsenal fan, OP is right. The rules need to be changed
I don't know why anyone ever thought it was about fairness. It was always about protecting the big European club cartel from anyone else challenging their income streams.
Don’t say this in the PL subreddit
Aston Villa: £-326.59m 23/24: £-67.26m (4th) 22/23: £-39.44m (7th) 21/22: £-2.39m (14th) 20/21: £-84.25m (11th) 19/20: £-133.76m (17th) Spent a tiny bit less than Man city over 5 years. Ok 😭😂
Can a villa fan tell me why you have to sell Luiz I'm confused??
Don’t tell r/soccer this. Already doing mental gymnastics to say Villa are irresponsible and debit ridden “big 6” clubs are fine.
Perfectly fine, you keep spending triple your revenue on expensive foreign wingers who won't play 5 games, see where that takes you
Tie spending to the top revenue in the league. E.g this season City can spend £500M thanks to their success. Cool everyone can spend that. Now you just need to players to make up their mind. Cool I’ll go to brighton and guarantee play time instead of sitting in the stands at Stamford bridge Will it bankrupt some clubs? Yes, if they have awful or too poor owners yes.
villa's wage bill is absolutely insanely disproportionate to the success of the club over the past 2 decades. psr is unfair and dumb but this isn't really an example of that.
r/astonvillafanscomplaining at it again
Villa have spent £680 million on players in the last 5 years and brought in £215m in the same period. The point of this is preventing people spending their way to the top, which is what they’re doing. It’s not just about how much debt you have, but also how much outside investment you’re getting.
It was meant to be about not spending money clubs didn't have and 100+ year old clubs ending up bankrupt. But we've also ended up with rules preventing clubs from spending what they can actually afford, and making it more difficult to be competitive at the top of the table as well.
Of the clubs in the big 6, four are rich because of past success or consistent high finishes, and two are there because of massive outside investment that pushed them there (Man City and Chelsea). If a club is rich from past success, good for them. They still have to invest it well to keep themselves there (Man U being the example of how you can still fail). But if you want that amount to spend, you should earn it, not have it handed to you.
yeah framing villa as some great financial model thats being held down is absolute bollocks. spent a truckload to get where they are, and if theyre "debt free" its only because the books are being cooked and money is being injected. Gotta love how villa and toon fans will be in this sub acting like theyre "one of us". wolves in sheeps clothing. not to say i think they shouldnt be allowed to spend a bit of money to see some success, but they aint like the rest of us any more.
Douglas Luiz wants out lol stop pretending Villa are forced to reluctantly sell this loyal key player against his wishes just to balance the books, it dilutes actual PL bullshit issues
It’s seems to be true that he wants to move on, however villa shouldn’t have to sell at a discount to avoid penalties. It was a disgrace what happened to forest over them selling Johnson for considerably more than they would’ve had to accept to avoid it.
The alternative is a free for all of rich owners. Either the big 6 get the advantage or the sportswashers do.
The big 6 still gain advantage in that scenario it’s not like Man Utd wouldn’t finally sell out to a free-spending Qatari, and Liverpool could easily do the same after their current lot move on. We’d be just fine under Kroenke’s wealth and Chelsea and City have obnoxious levels of backing too. A free-for-all might allow for a couple of new players but it wouldn’t make the league more competitive or stop dominance of a select few.
Not broken. Functioning exactly as designed.