Czarnikjak

Latest Deloitte Money League has our revenue for last season at £214m.

I wonder how they know, our accounts have not been published yet,  unless they have early access…

28 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Most of that increase is broadcasting,  which we should also see quite a big increase in. 

Not sure why there are two commercial lines, but the ~30m they got there will no doubt be heavily weighted towards the self sponsorship they got, for which we won't ever be catching up with them. But we will get closer with Adidas.

How the hell they managed to increase the Match day revenue by £10m without ticket price increase? Their hospitality/corporate must be well ahead of ours if they can essentially generate double the match day revenue of ours with only extra 10k seats...

Talking about increasing revenue, look at just published Newcastle figures for last season (that's before they got any CL money). 

£70m revenue increase....this train is departing quickly and we ain't catching it.

4 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I think the Castore deal was £10m per year and we're hopefully getting 25-30m per year now with Adidas 

No, all sources I've seen agree on £3m per year. Perhaps £10m in total for 3 years.
 

From Adidas more realistic would be around £10m going upto £15m if we qualify for CL. No chance in hell we will getting anywhere near £30m. Spurs are getting £30m currently after years of qualifying for Europe and much larger world wide following than us.

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Finally. It took long enough for the obvious to happen.

Spurs signed an amazing long term deal with Nike back when they got into CL. Let's hope we have got a right good deal. Nassef is the largest shareholder of Adidas so we better be getting a sweet deal. 

Will definitely be a welcome boost to our FFP position 

Our Castore deal worth £3m per year is pretty decent if you compare it to mere £90m Adidas pays Man Utd every year not sure why we would want to change

2 hours ago, VillaJ100 said:

Is there a chance we'd get more from Europe than Newcastle if we win the conference?

No. About 20mil is the maximum.

On 30/12/2023 at 11:23, ender4 said:

Need to go far into Europe this season to build up that coefficient as the money received from CL football depends on that coefficient.   Otherwise we don’t get much from even being in the CL compared to Liverpool, Arsenal, etc. 

Newcastle only got half of what Man Utd got from CL even though they both went out at the same stage in the same group position. 

NSWE pumped in another £130m into the club in December. So looks like we are still not sustainable without cash injections. The price to compete at the top is high! 

11 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Interesting.

I would guess Villa salary to revenue percentage is in the high 80%'s?

The UEFA salary cap is what, 90% this year?, then it drops to 80% next year?, then 70% in 2025?

just looking at the UEFA cost control thingy, it says "ratio of player wages, transfers and agent fees being limited to 70% of revenue and profit on player sales".

is that right?, profit on player sales included also?

 

It also looks like FFP is to become more flexible, ie: the 60m loss over 3 years is a guide if the owner places effectively a "bond" for any excess over 5m  if the club is in "good health", they can be approved to go another 10m over per period? (ie: 30m over the 3 years?, so in theory the 3 year losses could be up to 90m?, rather than the base 60m if all is well and healthy at the club?

nor sure if all this is true, this is where i read it:

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/uefa-squad-cost-control-ratio-2023

Last time we tried to calculate our ratio here it was around 80-90%, but this is with high degree of uncertainty.

Yes, player sale profits also count, last 3 year average of your player sales goes towards the cap calculation. Grealish sale just dropping off that calculation was probably the main reason for selling Archer and Ramsey.

Swiss Ramble is an authoritive source for me, you can take anything he writes is factually correct.

58 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

So what is the general consensus of opinions ?

Do we have to sell before we can buy?

Are we on the limits or above of financial fairl play or do we have some wriggle  room to spend ? 
 

If we do not qualify for the Champions League, will we have to sell one or two of the jewels in our crown?

 

We are not constrained by Premier League P&S that much. Bigger problem is UEFA salary cap, we are constrained by that now as we play in Europe. 

Having said that, I would expect focus in January to be selling people like Chambers and Traore (if possible at all), and reassessing in the summer when we know which competition we will be playing next season.

54 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Our income figure will be fascinating next time out - there seems to be assumption it'll be around the £200m mark - I have a feeling it might be quite a bit more than that.

Last released figures were £178m. Around March figures for last season will be released. Will struggle to hit £200m for that period (obv I'm not counting player sales). We gonna get around £14m boost for higher league placement, few extra bob for higher ticket prices, there was no major new commercial deals last season...all in all, maybe we will scrape £200m but i doubt it.

19 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Ah i see. So all the current work in terms of design and planning does count towards FFP, but the actual £100m cost from when the work actually starts won't count into the FFP calc?

Essentially yes (although I'm pretty sure once the actual work gets the green light and goes ahead you can recapitalise previous expenses and essentially "claim it back" from profit and loss perspective).

In Everton case costs prior to June 2021 were expensed on the profit&loss account, I think that was the time when they were given the green light to go ahead with the build.

If you're interested in Everton finances this Blog has you covered https://theesk.org/2022/05/30/evertons-financial-position-entering-the-summer/

6 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Reading about the Everton breach of FFP, it seems that they couldn't just disregard the stadium costs. The stadium costs counted towards their FFP calculations as did the interest payable on the cash required to build the stadium.  

So if our North stand is going to roughly cost £100m and our annual revenue is £200m, how much does this screw us in terms of what we can spend on players?

Over how many years can we spread the £100m cost as part of the FFP calc?

 

They could, but only after they received build permit you can start capitalising these costs. Any preliminary work before you get the the neccasary permits was counted towards ffp.

8 minutes ago, DJBOB said:

Interesting that Arsenal's is so low. They press very aggressively in the opponent third but as soon as the opponent builds out, they drop and are content with blocking/intercepting instead compressing the pitch.

I think as a result, Arteta has sacrificed some of the high turnover possibilities with a more solid defense. The numbers show true as they are the league leaders in xGA while we are 4th in xG but the high line results in some opponents running free.

An interesting contrast in philosophies.

Edit: If you take npXG into account as Arsenal have won 6 penalties, they are 11th in the league. Arteta playing it safe this year.

Maybe they are low because they DO press high, not giving opposition even the chance to get caught offside. We don't press high and thus encourage long balls over compressed middle of the pitch. Risky strategy playing high line without press.

3 hours ago, Chicken Field said:

Personally I am still shocked that Gerrard and Purslow decided to sign him after a really poor second half to his loan. 

Coutinho seems like a lovely bloke and did seem to really try for us, so good luck to him.

Gerrard had no clue what he was doing and Purslow had massive ego.

Both paid the price for their poor judgement, unfortunately it did cost us a lot of dough.

18 hours ago, ender4 said:

"salary covered".   Doesn't sound like a loan fee on top, but just the salary.

Yup, even if it's just the salary off our books it's still worth it, as it looks like that was the best offer we got for him.

Still better than paying him £135k every week.

2 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Since he is hardly involved I am not sure what use he would be if we do get injuries

He could be a good company to other injured players in the treatment room.

32 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Id rather keep him for 7m. Then we have to pay his wages again next season 

Bad deal for us in my opinion

Lol, you would rather keep him so he can spend another year on the treatment table while we pay £7m for this privilege?  

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

Good work Monchi

Saudis or Qatari would buy anyone with only a passing resemblance to a footbal player...not sure Monchi deserves much credit for this one.

1 hour ago, Frodo said:

Barcelona signed him for a reason, because the way they play & being a good defender, I'm taking into account his over 160 appearances for Barcelona not his 12 month loan spell at spurs (basket case of a club last season) don't care what he is on & we're a centre back being injured for us to be in abit of a crises specially if we're playing 3 at the back, I fully expect him to keep his place in a back 3 once he gets his chance, either way I see this as exceptional cover for what we have.

Barcelona signed Coutinho for a reason too. I don't think the fact that Barcelona signed someone 5 years ago has any relevance to their current usefulness for Villa.

5 minutes ago, Beastmix said:

Enter... Chris Heck.

 

In before [Kenneth Williams . jpeg]

So far the only idea Chris Heck shown is to flog fans via Terrace View...lets judge him by his actions not reputation from previous clubs.

8 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I just want him to get fit and play for us. He was looking good before the injury. We'll need him in Europe. Plus if he leaves we'll need a replacement and there's like 1 more day in the transfer window.

We don't need replacement for the treatment table place, and if you talking about pitch he never is never fit Anyway

45 minutes ago, turvontour said:

If Coutinho goes we are pretty light to go far in europe.

He is never available to play anyways, so him going makes no difference to our chances in Europe.

15 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

If we can sell Digne for ~£15m he's flat in in cost to us in FFP. But we also get wages off the books. If we replace with Acuna it might be close to flat or small bit worse in cost. Moving Digne on and replacing just doesn't seem like it's worth it this window, unless Emery needs the full back who can get up and down the left side and dribble

You would also get Digne amortisation off the books, not just his wages. So you saving annually 6.5m + 5m, even if you sell for no profit.

9 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Ha no sorry mate - I get how Amortisation etc works. I meant how the UEFA rules differ.

It's very different and quite simple.

Your squad cost is allowed to be 80% of your revenue (this season, next season drops to 70%).

Squad cost is sum of playing and coaching staff salaried plus amortisation. 

This is divided by your revenue with added profit on player sales (averaged over last 3 years.)

So as our revenue is about £200m and average profit on player sales is about £40m, we can spend on wages and amortisation upto 80% of £240m, all ball park figures.

2 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Sorry am I reading that we have £96m of headroom?

Correct. So Premier League ffp is not a limiting factor atm, but as we qualified for Europe now, we are also subject to the new UEFA squad cost control rules, which are very strict in comparison.