What a disaster for the rest of the clubs in the Premier League today.
I have no idea why clubs like Sunderland and Everton voted for the rules today but it ensures the big clubs will never be challenged. There are two reasons for this
1) to challenge them you need to spend and therefore our spend under MON would now be penalised
2) To link to TV deals and sponsorships means of course who gets the bigger deals. For example Spurs shirt deal was £34M ours was £10m or so, guess how can pay more wages.
Then of course we voted against as we should but people are asking why. For me it is simple, by that one move the value of Villa to sell has fallen dramatically. I have no doubt Randy wishes to sell, well who to now ? Think of the amount of money that is needed to spent at the club to rebuild the squad.
Then think of the only people who can afford it then think of the lack of real money they can now spend in a era where transfer fees and wages will only go up.
You can only come to the one conclusion that to sell the club will be very difficult and not at the price Randy would want.
In other words after today we are stuffed.
(unless you believe buying lower league younger players can really challenge the top teams)
EDIT – Someone on the Villa Mailing list brought ip a great point I had not thought of
The Villa know that they will make loses of more than £105 over the next 3 years. Perhaps it’s because the loans have to be paid back during this period.
Sustained prudent investment can still yield reward. OK, not overnight, but with a solid longterm strategy there is still plenty of scope for well run clubs to succeed
not if those at the top with revenues of 2 times or more can spend far more …
Were we ever going to compete with them through Randy’s spending anyway? If we are to compete at the top again we need to be much smarter. If we tried to compete with £s we’d need £500m which is not going to happen, nor should it. We need to strengthen the academy further. It’s good at the minute, but we really need to be tapping into the cream of youngsters across Europe and take it to another level.
I was told our Academy is laughable and a waste of time.
By who?
I bet this doesn’t take into account Man Citeh’s joke of a stadium sponsorship deal.
Footballs fans have got to ask themselves if this is all worth it…
many are already and this rule also puts pressure on increasing the admission prices.
Actually this doesn’t affect us in the short term if that buffon Randolph won’t shell out for a desperately needed CM.
We r stuffed anyway Ian. We never competed with sky 4 before ffp so what difference does it make. Football is dying on its arse now anyway I’m bored shitless of the predictability of the prem league and how no one except the elite few can compete. It’s so fixed its untrue.
So many arguments for and against, i am struggling to form an opinion on this one
it is simple for me, any rule thaat locks out what Man City, chelsea owners did is plain wrong as they had the riches and now (though Man City voted against) they want to stop others.
IF a club gets into trouble then so be it .. that is the choice of that club. What should be done is make football totally open
publish all wages (as they do in the Us)
publish the full fees and repayment terms
publish all money paid to agents in individual deals
etc
But, for instance, if Citeh’s revenues fall suddenly then the freefall would be so much faster…
would it, the formula is so complicated that in essence all City’s owners ahve to do is to sign another Etihad deal.
Like any club City’s fate is in the hands of the owners. What would have been better is a debt rule as losses are not key if covered by the owners. Do we really want to stop Villa from ever having an owner who might be prepared to put in millions ?
All the PL wants is a status quo- the same old sky 4/5 clubs at the top, we weren’t going to break through before and we certainly won’t now. I’ve asked myself the question, why bother any more and tbh I do not have an answer.
All I see is more and more fans of teams outside the PL’s beloved ‘elite’ clubs turning their back on the game. What is the point when an already unlevel playing field becomes even more one sided.
Another depressing post, well done. We’re stuffed, the team and manager are shit and the owner needs to sell to a rich arab billionaire before we join Luton in whatever league they’re in.
its not all bad, the bit about “have to guarantee those losses against the owner’s assets” surely can’t be a bad thing? And says to me a lot about RL not being in favour.
how on earth can that be enforced when we are owned by an holding company which is turned owned by an holding company in Delaware, impossible nonsense that rule is.
How about Blues situation with that rule ?
That’s true making that section of the agreement an unenforceable farce.
Blues-I’m amusing only apply to PL teams so the rules are not applicable?
*Assuming* (although their present predicament is amusing)
I do mean if they were int he PL, so has you said it is totally uneforceable as for example Spurs are still a PLC and many other clubs are LTD ones …
You can not go against company law
When a Limited Company Goes Bankrupt the company formation protects the PERSONAL ASSETS OF THE DIRECTORS, who will lose any money that they invested in the business. They WILL NOT, however, LOSE THEIR OTHER ASSETS- only those that belong to the company are subject to liquidation, not those that belong to its directors.
Looks like you’re spot on Robo, it’s appears to be total bollox, a case of smoke and mirrors.
BWS – in principle you’re correct; but in practice the whole idea of ‘limited liability’ has been worked-around for years. A huge proportion of company shareholder/directors have no choice but to give personal guarantees, in writing, to banks or major suupliers. The bank assesses the risk to themselves [and charges accordingly] but then guarantees the funds, up to an agreed limit, so that the creditor doesn’t lose money if the company goes bust. In fact it’s almost impossible for any small business to start these days without the directors and shareholders giving personal guarantees to their bank…
Ardent I’ll take your word on it but one question- without meaning to appear pedantic we already are an established LTD company, so if RL (or any other owner)
refuses to give those personal guarantees, what happens? Expelled from the PL?
Be interesting to see how this pans out.
Actually it can be done, and is done commercially in quite a few businesses already: the owner has to lodge funds in a UK bank that cover the liability; there is then a bank guarantee in favour of the ‘creditor’ [presumably in this case the FA or EPL]. If at any time the owner tries to remove the guaranteed funds from the bank, the crdeditor is immediately informed and everything ‘stops’…
I insure debt for a living and this type of guarantee normally is in the form of a bond as there is no point borrowing say 1m from a bank if you need to put 1m in a bank to cover the liability, you would just pay for it yourself !!
There is absolutely no way the PL could make randy put the millions we are in debt for into an FA account as the debt is owed to Randy’s Co therefore its double accounting …. Lets just hope he writes the lot off and allows us to start trying to compete again, but there is as much chance of that as me not having a beer over the weekend.
Saddened – agree that most businesses that I deal with use the Bond system; I was just trying to keep my reply simple. As for ‘double accounting’ – well that’s an interesting one: say the company made an operating loss of £10m in it’s draft annual a/c’s; presumably the auditors would have to insist on a provision for the equivalent amount, so the final a/c’s would show an effective loss of £20m for the year. Technically that isn’t ‘double accounting’ but it would certainly increase the bottom line loss!
You state that you have no doubt that Randy wishes to sell.
On what solid factual evidence do you make this claim ?
I don’t think that he does. Other than believing that he be bought us to trim us and shape us for a plethora of potential investors speculating over football clubs, there is no sense to what has happened at all.
I see a man who threw money at a project in a vain hope of success feeling that he was backing the right people in charge of the team, and as hindsight has shown, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Acorns deal, Bodymoor Heath, revamping the Holte Hotel, buying players at top prices to be released eventually on frees…?
As a Carlsberg ad may say, probably the worst asset stripper in the world !!!
Of course this rule would stop the likes of Blackburn competing again, is that good for football ?
BWS – I ‘d imagine that you’re right: if any club refused to follow the rules [if/when they are finally presented] then yes, I suupose that they could be expelled from the Premier League. In practical terms I’d also imagine that an awful lot of lawyers would make a shed-load of money dragging that sort of event out through the courts before it happened!
You have to ask yourself this is there any point following villa or football in genaral? Answers to f a please if all the fans had the balls to not turn up football will crash and burn and will have to go back to how it used to be problem is were a nation of pussys happy to go along with any shit they put up, wheres our backbone gone? How is any football fan happy with this?
I hate the fact that money is now the single most talked about issue in football. I can just see more and more proper fans turning their back on the game at the higher levels in this country and start following it at a lower level.
nah, that means you have to change your team and few of us will do that.
However we have predicted the slump in the PL for a while now and yet overall attendances have stayed up. We of course have bucked that trend but the 30K against Newky and probably tomorrow is still well above the levels we got when going for the title under BFR (remember 17K against sheff Utd on a TV game ??). Going to a game still retains a magical quality for a lot of people.