Aston Villa post losses of £122m for 22/23 season

A

AytonMews

Well-known member
As i understand FFP, you’re only allowed to accumulate losses of £105 million in a three year rolling period.

Apparently the season before, they broke even with the Grealish sale, which means this season they needed to turn a £20m profit… which would explain the Archer and Ramsey loans disguised as sales
 
Its crazy isn't it that teams with fairly massive TV revenues are still allowed to lose £35m a season.

Some might saw good luck to them, but what it does do is inflate players wages, in general and that can even affect Championship clubs.
 
I don't see the point in FFP as it just limits clubs ability to break the footballing hierarchy. I mean their owners are worth 6 billion why does it matter they should be able to spend and lose even more to catch up to City
 
AytonMews said:
As i understand FFP, you’re only allowed to accumulate losses of £105 million in a three year rolling period.

Apparently the season before, they broke even with the Grealish sale, which means this season they needed to turn a £20m profit… which would explain the Archer and Ramsey loans disguised as sales
Click to expand...
Didn't they break the FFP rules to get to the PL when they beat us in the play-offs?
 
Gosh it's a lot isn't it, and I don't even think of them as a particularly big spender.

I really think the era of MASSIVE fees in the PL might have had its high water mark last summer. Since Everton got an actual real life punishment clubs have their tails between their legs, we saw it in January when the only club who spent was Spurs.

I don't think you'd see a Caicedo go for 100 million quid today. I think there's so many clubs right up against the line with FFP that fees might be a lot more realistic in the summer.

What's funny is the clubs (hi Chelsea) who spent like lunatics thinking that prices would continue to double every season and other PL clubs spending like maniacs will continue to bail them out.

It's a PL-driven problem as well. Bundesliga, Italy and even La Liga (outside of Barca with Coutinho et al) actually pay realistic fees, Real only spent 100m for Bellingham who is one of the world's best. If the PL wind their spending in, there's only Saudi left to pay crazy money - and that's an acquired taste for a player.
 
Boro4life said:
I don't see the point in FFP as it just limits clubs ability to break the footballing hierarchy. I mean their owners are worth 6 billion why does it matter they should be able to spend and lose even more to catch up to City
Click to expand...

Agree with this, if the owners have deep enough pockets let them spend it but just don’t allow them to build it up as debt if they want to spend more than ffp allows make them have to inject the funds as equity.
 
AytonMews said:
As i understand FFP, you’re only allowed to accumulate losses of £105 million in a three year rolling period.

Apparently the season before, they broke even with the Grealish sale, which means this season they needed to turn a £20m profit… which would explain the Archer and Ramsey loans disguised as sales
Click to expand...

Posting a book loss of £122 million is not the same as posting a FFP loss of £122 million. The FFP number is revenue minus player wages and transfer fees only. All the stuff like stadium works and community works and training ground costs is taken out of the P&L numbers for the purposes of FFP.

Others on here can give you chapter and verse on this.
 
FFP was never about creating a platform for fair play, despite the acronym, nor about creating a sustainable healthy model for football clubs, it was about creating a model that ensured the current "big clubs" in the PL can continue to be the big clubs without pesky upstarts being able to invest, usurp them and get thier hands on the filthy champions league lucre
 
MickaelDebevePhenomenal said:
FFP was never about creating a platform for fair play, despite the acronym, nor about creating a sustainable healthy model for football clubs, it was about creating a model that ensured the current "big clubs" in the PL can continue to be the big clubs without pesky upstarts being able to invest, usurp them and get thier hands on the filthy champions league lucre
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I entirely buy that it was for the benefit of the big clubs only. It needed a super majority to get voted in within the prem league. That meant all the middling clubs supporting it too. They did it to try and ensure that the 3 promoted teams would all be so much weaker that the middling clubs would have a negligible chance of relegation.....and looking at the table it worked.
 
Either way it makes it difficult for clubs to break in to the champions league and stay there… see Lester and the Saudis on the Tyne.

I mean what were the noises from the Sports direct stadium when the take over was approved….

Haarland, Mbappe, Ronaldo, Messi, posh spice doing the pots and today they are been linked with Lloyd Kelly on a free from Bournemouth.

And probably even more difficult to get to the promised land and stay there. Most if not all clubs make a loss to get up then need to spend big to stay there. These rules limit that investment and make it harder to do.
 
I suppose the FFP was introduced to basically protect the clubs from themselves, wasn’t it?

You could get owners coming in and spending ridiculous sums of money just looking for a couple of seasons in the sun with no long term plan, then leaving the club right in the schit when the debts mount up.




When was the figure of £120m losses over 3 years decided on? It really doesn’t seem a lot in the current football climate. You can’t even buy a decent international centre back for less than about £40m these days
 
it’s just stuff and nonsense, if it was about protecting clubs then get the owners to stick a wedge behind the bar that covers any losses the club can expect for the next 10 years.

A correctly worked fit and proper test would protect clubs much better than any of these financial restrictions and penalties (in my humble opinion of course)
 
Pak_Doo_Ik said:
But why, the owners could just say here’s £106m keep the change
Click to expand...
Some owners could say and do that. The problem is that, for every billionaire owner, there are a hundred chancers who will buy a club and fund it from borrowing. If it works - great - but if it doesn't then the owner walks away and the club goes bust.

You can't have one rule for people who are obviously bona fide and another for people who may not be.

A wage cap is the way to control out of control football spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top