LUFCTALK

I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand this ruling. Could someone in lay mans terms explain what it covers & what it effects. It appears to be riddled with loop holes ( Villa selling their ground to the owner in order to comply )

Confused of Nottingham

Sorry I can’t help but would love to hear exactly what it’s about.

I think it's £39m max over three seasons.
Debt I mean.
So Villa spent lots on fees and wages, ended up some £50-60m in the red and promptly engineered a stadium sale to cover the debt.
They basically cooked the books - legally until proven otherwise - and avoided penalties.

Not sure what's going to happen but the deal will be investigated by the EPL and they find themselves in hot water.

The trouble is timescales. There's a massive knock on effect when fixtures are involved as authorities don't like to do anything once the season is underway...

The stadium sale was in house which is why it looks so dodgy.

The problem with FFP is that it increases the advantage of the wealthy clubs. This is why the top four in the Premiership will mostly be the same names with the odd change from fifth and sixth. Plus it is a lot easier for the football authorities to take on the Blackpool's and Bolton's of this world than the 'big boys'.

NottinghamWhite wrote:I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand this ruling. Could someone in lay mans terms explain what it covers & what it effects. It appears to be riddled with loop holes ( Villa selling their ground to the owner in order to comply )

Confused of Nottingham

I'm in the same boat, Phil. Loop holes as you said would be the best way to describe it. I'll use an example of the recent transfer of Kovacic to Chelski who are supposedly under a transfer ban...

That's not a loophole at all - it's because the deal was for a loan of one year with the option to buy at the end of it, which they've exercised perfectly legally.

rigger wrote:That's not a loophole at all - it's because the deal was for a loan of one year with the option to buy at the end of it, which they've exercised perfectly legally.

They paid £40m for the transfer fee, Rigz. Loop hole somewhere.

DominanceUK wrote:

rigger wrote:That's not a loophole at all - it's because the deal was for a loan of one year with the option to buy at the end of it, which they've exercised perfectly legally.

They paid £40m for the transfer fee, Rigz. Loop hole somewhere.

I see your point D but it isn't really, the ban would be illegal if they tried stopping an agreed deal.

Not defending chelsea at all, I'm hoping almost anticipating a quite dramatic slide next season for them.