st albans fox Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 presumably we have to wait for the EFL window to close before several on here apologise to the poster who said we were currently 'skint' and would have a low nett spend
Fox92 Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 3 hours ago, KingsX said: Burnley: Spent £1m, Sold £0 Their poor supporters. Not only do you have to watch post-WWII football, their idea of “squad reinforcement” is buying trusses for aging British players. Those who have been to Turf Moor -- when you enter the stadium, does your vision suddenly turn to black & white? I don't mind Turf Moor at all, in fact Burnley is probably one of my favourite away games. Dyche has done an incredible job there and basically overachieved. People take the piss but it's good to see rather than a club throwing money all over shop. I think Dyche is frustrated with funds, it seems to come out more now, but it must be difficult attracting players to Burnley anyway. Don't forget that part. Which is probably why a lot of ageing players end up there. If you offered a player the choice of Burnley/Villa/Leeds/Newcastle then Burnley would probably be the bottom of that list as a choice.
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 2 hours ago, st albans fox said: presumably we have to wait for the EFL window to close before several on here apologise to the poster who said we were currently 'skint' and would have a low nett spend He said we wouldn't spend anything. Weve spent the best part of 55m with the potential for even more with Under.
Swiss_tony Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 6 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said: Owners pumping it in. i don't think that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league. Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP??
ARM1968 Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 7 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said: i don't think that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league. Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP?? Fuch Fair Play?
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 9 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said: i don't think that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league. Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP?? FFP went out the window after Man City's ban gone overturned. Just look at what Chelsea did this summer.
st albans fox Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 46 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said: He said we wouldn't spend anything. Weve spent the best part of 55m with the potential for even more with Under. Didn't he say we wouldn't spend anything much above what sales brought in???? i didn't think he said we wouldn't spend anything irrelevant of sales
The Horse's Mouth Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 25 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said: i don't think that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league. Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP?? FFP is largely irrelevant in the prem because of how the TV revenue works
st albans fox Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 33 minutes ago, Swiss_tony said: i don't think that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league. Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP?? 7 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said: FFP is largely irrelevant in the prem because of how the TV revenue works promoted clubs can generally spend way more than established clubs as their wage bills are much lower. after a few seasons, the wage bill will increase and then there is less to spend on transfer fees
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 23 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Didn't he say we wouldn't spend anything much above what sales brought in???? i didn't think he said we wouldn't spend anything irrelevant of sales Who are you referring to? Fin said net spend would be flat and they'd all be free transfers from abroad. That other muppet said we were skint because we owed so much in transfer fees and king power was going bust. As happens our net spend is pretty much flat to the last three years - I dont see how either were right?
davieG Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 1 hour ago, Swiss_tony said: i don't think that's true, because that's what FFP was designed to stop, the sugar daddy buying the league. Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP?? I don't know if it applies to the PL but...... David Conn Thu 18 Jun 2020 18.52 BSTLast modified on Thu 18 Jun 2020 20.20 BST https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/18/uefa-agree-to-suspend-financial-fair-play-rules-due-to-pandemic Owners of top clubs will temporarily be permitted by Uefa’s financial fair play rules to put more money into their clubs, to cover increased losses caused by football’s shutdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Uefa announced a series of “emergency measures” to acknowledge that clubs competing in the Champions League and Europa League, who must comply with FFP “break-even” limits, cannot do so this season because of drastic losses caused by the shutdown. The principles accept that clubs can make losses greater than the permitted €30m over a rolling three-year period, and that owners can cover those losses. Uefa stressed, however, that it was still committed to encouraging good financial management by clubs, and the measures were aimed only at “neutralising the adverse effects of the pandemic”: lost ticket income while matches are played behind closed doors, and the potentially major loss of some TV, commercial and sponsorship income.
Vestan Pance Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 1 hour ago, Swiss_tony said: Having said that, Villa have a net spend of 214m since being promoted. How is that even possible under FFP?? Their owner cheated the system by using another company to buy Villa Park for £56m, thus making the losses much smaller. Although it would appear the upshot is Villa no longer own Villa Park and their supporters don't seem to care (much like other supporters who's owners have pulled the same stunt).
shailen Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 8 hours ago, weller54 said: Where do Villa get all their dosh from? Their win in 1982
Spudulike Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 24 minutes ago, Vestan Pance said: Their owner cheated the system by using another company to buy Villa Park for £56m, thus making the losses much smaller. Although it would appear the upshot is Villa no longer own Villa Park and their supporters don't seem to care (much like other supporters who's owners have pulled the same stunt). Do football clubs own their stadiums nowadays? Our's is owned by an overseas company, do we care?
Aleksz Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 1 hour ago, Abrasive fox said: Who are you referring to? Fin said net spend would be flat and they'd all be free transfers from abroad. That other muppet said we were skint because we owed so much in transfer fees and king power was going bust. As happens our net spend is pretty much flat to the last three years - I dont see how either were right? I’m pretty sure you also posted something similar to this at one point...
Pliskin Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 9 hours ago, weller54 said: Where do Villa get all their dosh from? Their filthy rich owners.... still signing off players though for the money they have.
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 11 minutes ago, Aleksz said: I’m pretty sure you also posted something similar to this at one point... Don't think I said any of that.
Vestan Pance Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 23 minutes ago, Spudulike said: Do football clubs own their stadiums nowadays? Our's is owned by an overseas company, do we care? I can't speak for everyone here, you'll have to start a poll. Anyway point missed.
st albans fox Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 3 hours ago, Abrasive fox said: Who are you referring to? Fin said net spend would be flat and they'd all be free transfers from abroad. That other muppet said we were skint because we owed so much in transfer fees and king power was going bust. As happens our net spend is pretty much flat to the last three years - I dont see how either were right? Can’t remember who it was - said he knew someone who had been told by a finance guy at the club that we would only spend a bit more than we took in. our nett spend past five years averages around 22 mill per annum ??.
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 3 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Can’t remember who it was - said he knew someone who had been told by a finance guy at the club that we would only spend a bit more than we took in. our nett spend past five years averages around 22 mill per annum ??. And its circa 10m this year? Not far. Was 10m last year.
st albans fox Posted 6 October 2020 Posted 6 October 2020 Just now, Abrasive fox said: And its circa 10m this year? Not far. Was 10m last year. Dont know what it is this year until a) we get to the end of the window b) Percy tells us what the deal was with chilly
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.