Championship 2018-19

[JHRover]

Villa confirmed Bruce staying on. Sensible move. They'll be right up there again. No disaster, no firesale, no embargo.

[islander200]

Leeds agree a 3 million fee with Wolves for Douglas.Cracking signing that he was one of Wolves better performers last season

[Mattyblue]

Will even Grealish go?

Lot of gnashing of teeth over not a lot, it seems...

[JHRover]

Just now, Mattyblue said:

Will even Grealish go?

Lot of gnashing of teeth over not a lot, it seems...

National media enjoyed a few days of hysteria spreading after such a 'big' club failed to go up, but really seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing. Terry was always going to leave if they didn't get promoted. Grealish may well go but if he does it will be to a top club for huge money and would happen regardless of Villa's circumstances.

Steve Bruce doesn't usually hang around at clubs where trouble is imminent, see Hull and Birmingham where he walked the moment things began to turn sour.

One or two on here were filing it away as 'evidence' of what happens if a club gambles on promotion and fails yet it seems at this point the only real consequence for them has been the arrival of a couple of billionaires to try their hand at getting to the Premier League.

[DE.]

As far as I'm aware Villa still have to raise something like £30m in sales to avoid FFP sanctions. I don't think their new investors can do anything to change that. 

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-takeover-ffp-grealish-14935263

A decent summary of Villa's situation here. 

Keeping Bruce on is a smart move on their part, but I do wonder exactly what was going on with Henry. There was far too much smoke there for there not to be a fire.

[islander200]

Marriot confirmed at Derby.

Why can't we see Maddison confirmed at Rovers would be nice going to the match tonight with an exciting signing confirmed. Worryingly it's looking like nothing is close

[JacknOry]

Just now, islander200 said:

Marriot confirmed at Derby.

Why can't we see Maddison confirmed at Rovers would be nice going to the match tonight with an exciting signing confirmed. Worryingly it's looking like nothing is close

Surely with those millions in the bank - they could be a little more prepared to compromise on the structure of any payments for Maddison? Or am I clutching at straws? That is if it is us that is in for him.

[Bigdoggsteel]

43 minutes ago, DE. said:

As far as I'm aware Villa still have to raise something like £30m in sales to avoid FFP sanctions. I don't think their new investors can do anything to change that. 

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-takeover-ffp-grealish-14935263

A decent summary of Villa's situation here. 

Keeping Bruce on is a smart move on their part, but I do wonder exactly what was going on with Henry. There was far too much smoke there for there not to be a fire.

Ya, a bad start and I can see Bruce being the first manager sacked. Never smoke without fire ,as you say and there was definitely something going on there with Henry 

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

National media enjoyed a few days of hysteria spreading after such a 'big' club failed to go up, but really seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing. Terry was always going to leave if they didn't get promoted. Grealish may well go but if he does it will be to a top club for huge money and would happen regardless of Villa's circumstances.

Steve Bruce doesn't usually hang around at clubs where trouble is imminent, see Hull and Birmingham where he walked the moment things began to turn sour.

One or two on here were filing it away as 'evidence' of what happens if a club gambles on promotion and fails yet it seems at this point the only real consequence for them has been the arrival of a couple of billionaires to try their hand at getting to the Premier League.

Your lack of understanding of this is exposing you time and time again. You were corrected by a number of posters on Derbys situation yesterday, now you come on here bragging that you "called it" with Villa and things were always going to be fine. 

They still have to raise £30 million to avoid FFP restrictions and are still in trouble.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-takeover-ffp-grealish-14935263 

Any comment? 

[Mattyblue]

Thought it was Dreams of 1995 that was doing the ‘calling out’...

[JHRover]

8 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Your lack of understanding of this is exposing you time and time again. You were corrected by a number of posters on Derbys situation yesterday, now you come on here bragging that you "called it" with Villa and things were always going to be fine. 

They still have to raise £30 million to avoid FFP restrictions and are still in trouble.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-takeover-ffp-grealish-14935263 

Any comment? 

My comment? The transfer window shuts in 7 working days. To date they, and every other club, have not been sanctioned. No fines, no points deductions and no embargo. Heck, maybe they will eventually get an embargo in a weeks time when the window closes and it has no impact at all on their squad or performance.

I did call it with Villa. It isn't bragging its pointing out that whilst one or two were warning of the pitfalls of overspending and yet there they are with a quality squad and quality manager ready to start the new season whilst we rush around for some last minute additions to fill out our threadbare squad.

Have I understood wrong? Have they been punished? Very easy to say they might be or might have to do something in some non-specified point in the future. Means nothing in the here and now as teams prepare for the big kick off.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JHRover said:

My comment? The transfer window shuts in 7 working days. To date they, and every other club, have not been sanctioned. No fines, no points deductions and no embargo. Heck, maybe they will eventually get an embargo in a weeks time when the window closes and it has no impact at all on their squad or performance.

I did call it with Villa. It isn't bragging its pointing out that whilst one or two were warning of the pitfalls of overspending and yet there they are with a quality squad and quality manager ready to start the new season whilst we rush around for some last minute additions to fill out our threadbare squad.

Have I understood wrong? Have they been punished? Very easy to say they might be or might have to do something in some non-specified point in the future. Means nothing in the here and now as teams prepare for the big kick off.

They haven't been punished because, so far, they haven't broken the rules. Do you understand? It's in the article attached. Same as yesterday when it was explained to you how Derby had not broken the rules either. 

Who will sell more players before the window closes do you reckon, us or Villa? 

[perthblue02]

17 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

They still have to raise £30 million to avoid FFP restrictions and are still in trouble.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-takeover-ffp-grealish-14935263 

Any comment? 

Clever accounting?, stadium sponsorship from a company in a chain of many companies linked to the new money men? ignoring the Football League and finally settling for a small fine in 5 years time or threatening to challenge them? , clubs seem to come up with plenty of ways to get round it

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, perthblue02 said:

Clever accounting?, stadium sponsorship from a company in a chain of many companies linked to the new money men? ignoring the Football League and finally settling for a small fine in 5 years time or threatening to challenge them? , clubs seem to come up with plenty of ways to get round it

Any examples of clever accounting or stadium sponsorship? Not being smart, I just don't recall teams in the Championship doing this. Hull have a sponsored stadium name, but I think they did that when they were a Premier league club. I could be wrong on that. 

I don't think changing the name of Ewood would go down very well here, do you? 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Mattyblue]

Birmingham?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/44481033

 

[JHRover]

13 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

They haven't been punished because, so far, they haven't broken the rules. Do you understand? It's in the article attached. Same as yesterday when it was explained to you how Derby had not broken the rules either. 

Who will sell more players before the window closes do you reckon, us or Villa? 

So why are they 'in trouble' and supposedly being forced to sell some players then if they haven't broken the rules?

IF it is correct that they have to find £30 million from somewhere to meet FFP criteria then they are clearly in breach of the rules at this moment in time as they haven't sold anyone as yet and haven't brought any money in as yet.

Its commonly accepted in football circles that they should be in serious FFP trouble given the cash they have gone through in the last 2 years yet once again the rules aren't being enforced strictly or consistently.

I'm not getting onto this again with you but I seem to recall our very own Steve Waggott mentioning that 10 or 11 clubs in the Championship were in breach of FFP rules and facing sanctions, yet none have done. I can't quote him on that but I'm sure he said something along those lines earlier this summer, perhaps at the consultation meeting or the Q & A. I'll look back and try to find it tonight. If true do you think Derby and Villa might be 2 of those 11 rule breakers? If not which ones are?

6 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Any examples of clever accounting or stadium sponsorship? Not being smart, I just don't recall teams in the Championship doing this. Hull have a sponsored stadium name, but I think they did that when they were a Premier league club. I could be wrong on that. 

I don't think changing the name of Ewood would go down very well here, do you? 

Lots of examples if you look closely enough. Birmingham have recently renamed their stadium after their owners which is a blatant attempt to get round the rules. Forest were sponsored by Al Hasawi whilst he owned the club. Sheffield Wednesday are sponsored by Chansiri which isn't a company just their owners name and he sponsors a stand and their kit. Ipswich have been sponsored by their owner's company for years. Also add Wigan and QPR as clubs who have 'struck' lucrative sponsorship deals with companies owned or closely linked to their owners.

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

18 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So why are they 'in trouble' and supposedly being forced to sell some players then if they haven't broken the rules?

IF it is correct that they have to find £30 million from somewhere to meet FFP criteria then they are clearly in breach of the rules at this moment in time as they haven't sold anyone as yet and haven't brought any money in as yet.

Its commonly accepted in football circles that they should be in serious FFP trouble given the cash they have gone through in the last 2 years yet once again the rules aren't being enforced strictly or consistently.

I'm not getting onto this again with you but I seem to recall our very own Steve Waggott mentioning that 10 or 11 clubs in the Championship were in breach of FFP rules and facing sanctions, yet none have done. I can't quote him on that but I'm sure he said something along those lines earlier this summer, perhaps at the consultation meeting or the Q & A. I'll look back and try to find it tonight. If true do you think Derby and Villa might be 2 of those 11 rule breakers? If not which ones are?

Lots of examples if you look closely enough. Birmingham have recently renamed their stadium after their owners which is a blatant attempt to get round the rules. Forest were sponsored by Al Hasawi whilst he owned the club. Sheffield Wednesday are sponsored by Chansiri which isn't a company just their owners name and he sponsors a stand and their kit. Ipswich have been sponsored by their owner's company for years. Also add Wigan and QPR as clubs who have 'struck' lucrative sponsorship deals with companies owned or closely linked to their owners.

 

They are selling them so that they won't break the rules, it's pretty simple. Pre-emptive action. If they don't do what's needed they are in toeuble. 

So you acknowledge they have to raise 30 million, that's not good it it? Who will sell more players before the window closes , us or villa? 

Would you be happy if Ewood was sponsored and renamed? Venkys already pretty much sponsor the club by putting in their own money every few months. Don't tell me it's the minimum they should do, I know that already and it's not my point. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[JHRover]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

They are selling them so that they won't break the rules, it's pretty simple. Pre-emptive action. If they don't do what's needed they are in toeuble. 

So you acknowledge they have to raise 30 million, that's not good it it? Who will sell more players before the window closes , us or villa? 

Would you be happy if Ewood was sponsored and renamed? Venkys already pretty much sponsor the club by putting in their own money every few months. Don't tell me it's the minimum they should do, I know that already and it's not my point. 

You came up with the 30 million figure not me. I bet they won't bring in 30 million this summer and they won't receive punishment for not doing so.

Villa are starting from a much, much higher level than we are, with a much bigger and more expensive squad. They can afford to sell a few and still have a good side. We can't. It's hardly an achievement on our part that we go through a summer by selling less than they do. They're packed with Championship quality some Premier League quality. We've maybe half a dozen who would be sought after by other Championship clubs.

If we had to be crafty by 'renaming' Ewood or a stand in order to facilitate significant investment in the squad yes I'd take it. Birmingham have 'renamed' their ground yet everyone still calls it St Andrews, same as when Newcastle changed their ground name. Its a way round the rules. Sponsorship money isn't the same as owner investment, so if Venkys or one of their numerous companies or associated companies in their vast global empire decided to rename the family stand as the VH Group family stand they could do so and use that to pump in funds that would be discounted from FFP calculations. That's why those other owners do it.

[perthblue02]

5 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

Would you be happy if Ewood was sponsored and renamed? 

If it was a decent company and decent amount and a good percentage of it , used to strengthen the team , why not?

Rovers supporters will still refer to it as Ewood whatever it got re-named

Can not see it happening though unless a return to the Premiership or a change of owners.

Not a fan of back of shirt or short sponsors either but necessary evil nowadays, every little counts

Edited July 26, 2018 by perthblue02

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JHRover said:

You came up with the 30 million figure not me. I bet they won't bring in 30 million this summer and they won't receive punishment for not doing so.

Villa are starting from a much, much higher level than we are, with a much bigger and more expensive squad. They can afford to sell a few and still have a good side. We can't. It's hardly an achievement on our part that we go through a summer by selling less than they do. They're packed with Championship quality some Premier League quality. We've maybe half a dozen who would be sought after by other Championship clubs.

If we had to be crafty by 'renaming' Ewood or a stand in order to facilitate significant investment in the squad yes I'd take it. Birmingham have 'renamed' their ground yet everyone still calls it St Andrews, same as when Newcastle changed their ground name. Its a way round the rules. Sponsorship money isn't the same as owner investment, so if Venkys or one of their numerous companies or associated companies in their vast global empire decided to rename the family stand as the VH Group family stand they could do so and use that to pump in funds that would be discounted from FFP calculations. That's why those other owners do it.

I didn't come up with 30 million. It's in the article I posted. Did you even read it? They have to bring it in, so let's see. 

I can safely say that renaming Ewood would be met with uproar. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, perthblue02 said:

If it was a decent company and decent amount and a good percentage of it , used to strengthen the team , why not?

Rovers supporters will still refer to it as Ewood whatever it got re-named

Can not see it happening though unless a return to the Premiership or a change of owners

I meant by Venkys 

People said the same when Landsdown road was renamed the Aviva. A few still try and keep Lansdown road going, but calling it the Aviva has really creeped in 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[perthblue02]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

I meant by Venkys 

You didn't say that though

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, perthblue02 said:

You didn't say that though

I thought that's most likely. So what would you make of that? 

[OJRovers]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Any examples of clever accounting or stadium sponsorship? Not being smart, I just don't recall teams in the Championship doing this. Hull have a sponsored stadium name, but I think they did that when they were a Premier league club. I could be wrong on that. 

I don't think changing the name of Ewood would go down very well here, do you? 

Leicester made up £15 million of "international marketing" revenue from a shell company and pretty much got away with it.

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 minutes ago, OJRovers said:

Leicester made up £15 million of "international marketing" revenue from a shell company and pretty much got away with it.

 

Pretty much?