cheltenham_villa

34 minutes ago, pete101 said:

Is it gonna get to a stage where bigger teams will undercuting the smaller teams for players if these finances are so public and the bidding club know exactly how much the selling club are in the red and have no options but accept 

already happening. This is the nottingham forest problem. Brentford big 30m for Brennan Johnson on the last day of May. We later went to Spuds for 40m. Forest are now in trouble as a result, it left them with an FFP deficit for the reporting period.

I thought MON was right to sell Cahill. 5m for a youth player who hadn't looked that good plus we'd just signed Zat Knight

I thought he had a tough game againdt sterling but that's to be expected, he certainly helped us look sharper going forwards. I'd much rather see him there and konsa in the middle. 

8 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Maybe being so careful with Pau is just one big ploy to keep Lenglet and the moment the window shuts Pau is back and Lenglet is back on the bench. 

I think it's more likely that due to the injury to Pau, the club realised how important lenglet was which is why they wouldn't let him leave. I don't believe he had any sort of recall option which is why we had so much noise about clubs contacting villa. 

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I guess for me, BK8 is paying for football's exposure - the product it's buying is the Premier League, in this case through Villa, for stadium tours, the product is football.

For Pink! that's not the case, there's no football in the equation, ditto for an NFL team at Spurs.

I wonder for example, if Bodymoor were to open the doors as a private members gym, with access alongside the football players and membership costing £10m a year, with Mallory Edens the first member - would that £10m count toward FFP?

With your body moor example, yes I assume that would count as income.

A good example is villa park is used for trade shows and exhibitions in the holte suite. This rental income is also allowable income for the club. Unfortunately we're just not as good at this as others. 

I understand your point about football income, but the rules are about sustainability, not about making everything a level playing field for each club. 

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

We own Bodymoor - if we started farming on part of it, should that count? In so far as I'm aware, you didn't have to be a Spurs fan to attend a Beyonce concert, and most of the people that did weren't the slightest bit interested in football. No problem with Spurs making the money, I just don't think it should count for FFP - it's not fair play because it's not football money.

What have BK8 got to do with football?

Weve got 14 brand sponsors, not really anything to do with football. 

FFP isnt about football, its about turning the football clubs into sustainable business'. If a business can earn an income, and that income generates a profit that its helping the club become more sustainable. 

When fans do stadium tours, thats an income. 

When villa park held a concert for Pink, thats an income.

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

In terms of FFP income - I'm not entirely convinced that some of the stuff that gets included should be included - for FFP purposes, I think only the money that the football club generates through football based activities should be included.

If Spurs host Beyonce, or an NFL club or have a go kart track under the stadium - none of those things are football related - they just happen to take place on the club's premises - if Villa tripled the size of Bodymoor and farmed chickens, should that money be included for the purposes of FFP - if we opened a small factory in the North Stand car park that manufactured hubcaps, would that be included in FFP?

Where's the line on that and why has everyone just accepted that for example Spurs should be able to pay their full back £10k a week more because the Jackonsville Panthers needed a place in London to play?

by that stretch, you would also exclude shirt sales, programs (are they still a thing), food at the game, etc, etc. Commercial sponsors, what are they really and why should a name on a shirt allow you to gain money. 

If the club owns a stadium and chooses to rent out that stadium then that is income. When we sold the stadium to another company setup by NSWE, we were happy to take that as income and use it to purchase players. 

Feels like were picking and choosing our rules here.

1 hour ago, MrBlack said:

FFP has been a thing for well over a decade now.  Clubs are making more money than ever from the current TV deal. 

What has happened that suddenly means all the clubs are right on the edge of the FFP limits? Why weren't they last January? Or the one before, or the one before?

For us, are we really that close to our 3 year limit? Our spend has been moderate, and income constantly improving (Grealish sale accounted for). Our,  are our limits with a view on the uefa ffp limits, which are new to us and explain why we might have to cut our cloth more than we would have?

a few things happened: a number of rules were changed, covid losses were removed (which clubs were probably using to mask problems), the clubs agreed to resolve issues in the same financial year and  Everton received a 10 point deduction. The latter i believe has woken a lot of clubs up to the fact that this is serious and cannot simply be kicked down the road.

Reminds me a lot of Bert

Spurs charge a 100 quid to drive a go kart around the floor under the stadium. Place is just riddled with ways for people to part with cash.. 

1 hour ago, paul514 said:

Done in a much higher interest era, how’s it going for Arsenal now?

But arsenal were already arsenal. A strong squad and we'll established in the champions league. The compromised on challenging for titles. I'm just wondering if it's possible for us to compromise our push for European spaces in order to rebuild the stadium. I think the club has prioritised the latter (all speculation of course) 

11 minutes ago, paul514 said:

Simply non sense 

Arsene Wenger and his blatant lies that trigger the VT fanbase

https://shorturl.at/uyzY8

Speaking on beIN Sports, Wenger said that he encouraged the club to take what he believed was an important step.

“I encouraged the club to do it,” he said. “It cost £200 million more than we expected it to be."

"We were blocked, we could only spend 50% of the turnover on wages. For example, if the turnover was £500 million we could only dedicate £250 million to wages.

“So we always had to sell our best players because the best players want money.”

A move to a new, vastly bigger ground allowed the club to maximise turnover, but Arsenal needed Wenger to make a big sacrifice to secure the funding for construction.

“They wanted me to sign at the start of that period for five years,” the Frenchman revealed.

“I felt always that there was something special at Arsenal that I was proud to represent and to defend.

“On the other hand, loyalty is very important, and you cannot ask for the players to be loyal if you jump out at the first offer that you get.”

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

I mean, that is patently not true

Maybe "no club" is an exaggeration but Spurs went years without purchasing players in the window, arsenal the same when the emirates were built, Liverpool have a very low net spend on players. Everton is a good exception, theyre building a stadium and theyve also thrown millions at players, that has worked out very well. 

3 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

But you never recoup the construction cost of something when you come to sell it either. Financially, looking at the cost and opportunity cost, it will never make sense in a 10 year time frame. Maybe 20 was a stretch. But my point was, that the argument this was canned for a short term financial boost doesn't hold water. Or if it does, then it will forever, and we'll never improve the stand. That can't be the reason.

From a safety perspective, maybe we're not that far off being forced into something, but I've never felt unsafe in the North. Cramped, desperate for a piss, and annoyed I can't get a drink without missing the game, but never unsafe.

the opportunity cost is also a good point. No club have built a stadium or stand and continued to invest in the team. Its one or the other. 

Personally right now i think the club has decided that money in the team is the most important thing. 

3 hours ago, villa89 said:

That's the difference between us and Spurs/Arsenal. They can sell premium seats by the barrel load but the demand for Villa tickets is from joe punter who wants a £30 ticket, a pie and a pint. 

im not sure this is now true. i think the demand for terrace view and the other one is now growing. Ive seen some games particularly over xmas where we sold out. 

Its probably more accurate to say that Villa has typically been targeted at Joe Punter and none of us feel that comfortable with the gentrification. Ive now doubt it will be a success though like it is at every ground, it just means more families and tourists.

9 hours ago, MWARLEY2 said:

I know what you mean. But it also puts another fence around those teams with far higher revenue .  As it stands ( and i am only going by the outline 70 percent ) this is how we would have to try and compete with the available 70 percent revenue of others

Man city 443 mill , liverpool 416, man utd 408 Chelsea 336 Spurs 310, Arsenal 258 , West Ham 179.......etc etc ... and Villa 118

 

 

Unfortunately I think the top 6 is the top 6. The stats around what those teams have won in the last 20 years and how many of the champions league places they've taken are ridiculous. I personally don't believe it's possible to challenge them or join them (except maybe for the odd season) and sadly I'd rather teams didn't risk bankruptcy by trying. 

Very sad opinion I know. 

2 hours ago, MWARLEY2 said:

And to compound things the Premier League club heads are meeting soon to ratify bringing us into line with the UEFA rules of 70% max of revenue can be spent on transfers wages and agents. It is what it is i guess . But it isnt going to help us thats for sure. 

Personally I'm in favour of it, Dr Xi nearly cost us our club, any move towards the majority of clubs running sustainably is a positive for me. 

10 minutes ago, Leeroy said:

And we signed a youngster from the Serbian league (which I actually rate, I think he'll turn out to be good).

 

I just don't see anything in this player. Just because he was in City's Academy doesn't mean anything. And I thought we were selling players like JPB to bring in proven international footballers, not lesser players than the actual Academy players we sold. 

 

It's just a weird signing for me.

Could it be someone they see a profit in? Like an azazz, bring in for small money and sell on. Very much depends on the price. 

The reality is a lot of companies are returning to the office because they believe that the mass of people is more efficient organised in this way. 

Its also very likely that certain jobs are best organised from an office. Ive done a lot of work on Call Centre efficiency, all of the metrics point to the fact that call centres work better from an office. The individuals involved didnt necessarily have wfh space and preferred the social interactions that came with office work, the individuals dealt and answered more calls, the customer dialling in felt like the service they received was more professional and their calls were answered better,

The irony is I made these conclusions while working from home. My role has me running many analytics teams globally and being in an office would still mean being on the phone. I do accept though that I have to spend a part of my year travelling to locations in order to build relationships and collaborate.

I also often laugh at the fact that the VT wfh chat is most active during the day

7 hours ago, sidcow said:

Has anyone been to one of those big weekenders at Butlins?

I've been roped into the 80's on at Minehead in June.  I didn't realise it was THREE nights.  Anyone ever been to one?  I was thinking of ditching the last night and going home on Sunday.  Don't want to miss out though but I suspect the Sunday is a bit more low key.

Got quite a few mates who's marriages ended at the butlins weekend events. 

15 hours ago, CVByrne said:

They are also introducing a salary cap so no PL club has a wage bill bigger than the income of the bottom club. That was agreed by the PL as from next season UEFA CL prize money grows for those involved in it.

 

Have you got a link to this anywhere, id never heard of it and struggled to find anything that confirms its coming in. 

44 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

hmm, if we are meant to be loaning him back to them for the remainder of the season, why have they bought a new RB now?, wouldnt that now hinder Kosta's game time when we loan him back to them!?

it could be that weve agreed a lower price if we loan him back, the loan also keeps him off our wage bill for now. Seems odd though when we know we want a new right back.

The problem with us working out which players to sell for 60-100m is that probably only Chelsea, arsenal, United, Liverpool and city are paying those fees.

So not only do we need a player worth that, we also need to strengthen a rival and they need a player in that position. 

I think Watkins is most sellable on this basis, or maybe even Pau. 

I think it's more likely though we see 3 or 4 moving to create the money. Really we need to hope the players can go up another level 

8 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Luiz comes up a lot because of the fact Arsenal tried to buy him before and he will only have 2 years left on his contract this summer. So if we wanted to sell a player at the peak of his value to reinvest in squad and help FFP Luiz seems like the one. I think we will keep him however if we get CL as the financial boost that gives opens up room for us.

The big challenge with selling luiz is that probably those trying to buy him are also our rivals.