P3te Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 There has been suggestions that the Saudi's might be looking to buy a football club to put themselves on the map alongside the guys who own Man City and Paris Saint-Germain and with Qatar world cup coming up too. If true maybe they'll look at Villa. Well FFP means they are too late for the party. I know everybody is sick of hearing this but it's true. Well we can run up a £105 mil loss and still be within the Premiership FFP rules. So add to some comical 100 mil per year sponsorship and we can get back up in the top 6 fairly sharpish. We'll get some extra revenue from tickets sales then too. That's 105m over 3 years at not more than 45m per year for clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 There has been suggestions that the Saudi's might be looking to buy a football club to put themselves on the map alongside the guys who own Man City and Paris Saint-Germain and with Qatar world cup coming up too. If true maybe they'll look at Villa.Well FFP means they are too late for the party. I know everybody is sick of hearing this but it's true. Well we can run up a £105 mil loss and still be within the Premiership FFP rules. So add to some comical 100 mil per year sponsorship and we can get back up in the top 6 fairly sharpish. We'll get some extra revenue from tickets sales then too. That's 105m over 3 years at not more than 45m per year for clarity Ain't raining on any ones parade with that kind of spending. We never know what could happen or even could have happened but I still really hate FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) A £100m sponsorship created out of nothing to take your finances over the FFP 'line' can be re-evaluated for FFP purposes and attributed a correct market value. (I think) That is only for the European FFP not the domestic version. However, the BT Sport TV deal is looming and you could plan what is needed not to fail Uefa's FFP and still spend a fair bit to build a decent side. Europe is not an issue for us at this moment. Edited June 3, 2014 by GENTLEMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 There has been suggestions that the Saudi's might be looking to buy a football club to put themselves on the map alongside the guys who own Man City and Paris Saint-Germain and with Qatar world cup coming up too. If true maybe they'll look at Villa. Well FFP means they are too late for the party. I know everybody is sick of hearing this but it's true. Well we can run up a £105 mil loss and still be within the Premiership FFP rules. So add to some comical 100 mil per year sponsorship and we can get back up in the top 6 fairly sharpish. We'll get some extra revenue from tickets sales then too. Yea and then fall foul of Uefa rules which the loss is a third of the Premier League. Also don't ignore the fact that both PSG and city's sponsorship deals fell foul of the FFP rules and deemed illegitimate. It kind of shoots to pieces everything you just said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Well firstly all debt is wiped with the club being taken over so no more interest payments. Next we get a comical £60 million sponsorship deal from benefactor. PSG get 100 mil per year and UEFA fined them 50 million. We can argue the Premier League is a more world wide league etc.. We also get increased revenue from increased sales of shirts, tickets etc.. due to take over inside first year. That kind of improved level of income means we have circa 80-100 million more to spend on wages per season than we would normally have. That can make an impact rapidly in the Premier League and revenues can grow if that can get us into the Champions League. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 SuttonPaul are you FFP spokesman? You sure seem to know a lot about it. So in a nutshell even when we are taken over our spending will not be that high until we generate more money? But we can't generate more money without success which requires significant initial investment. Seems like a real catch 22 situation created by FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabby Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 SuttonPaul are you FFP spokesman? You sure seem to know a lot about it. So in a nutshell even when we are taken over our spending will not be that high until we generate more money? But we can't generate more money without success which requires significant initial investment. Seems like a real catch 22 situation created by FFP. Why do you think the big clubs voted it in ..it maintains the status quo.Last thing Liverpool etc want is a rich owner turning us or someone else into the next City or Chelsea and stealing revenue and fans from them 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandaq Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 And when all this comes to fruition, Senderos will sign for Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philosopher Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's easy to 'circumvent' FFP, all it needs is for the owner to gift the club money rather than loan. Though no owner does that because loaning your club money is potential very lucrative for themselves! The reality is there's no such thing as a free lunch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 By my calculations We lost 51m last year, 3/4 of which will be wiped out by the new tv deal and our finishing position. Remove Ireland and a few others from the wage bill and we will be pretty close to breaking even. So in essence we need to finish higher than 15th with the current squad to make money. Our fan base (as we saw in 07-09) can increase average attendance by 4,000 per game. 4,000 x18 x£30 = £2.1m Add to that stadium sponsor: well the emirates a decade ago was what £30m per year? I would expect us to reasonably get away with £7m per year deal. So right there it's £10m per year extra if we finish 15th. So we could in theory have 55m a year to play with in terms of keeping in with FFP. So let's say that new found £10m from excited villa fans coming back to VP and a cheeky. It reasonable stadium sponsorship deal comes in. If you assume out of our squad we want to have 10 happily well paid people as a core to the squad, we can use that money to inflate their salary by £17k a week each. Or more so for fewer players. So we lift the salary band for our top players, compete a bit better there, but we are now back to break even, or a slight loss. Still gives us £25m per year for fees and be well within any FFP RULES. £25m gets us one really good player and we can offer much better salaries than before. Hell £25m gets us Milner back, how much better would our team be with just him? Next summer £25m on a Cabaye or lulaku or Cahill? Not saying those but £25m gets you players like that. We don't need £60m a year, we need to offer much better salaries and spend half that or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Well firstly all debt is wiped with the club being taken over so no more interest payments. Next we get a comical £60 million sponsorship deal from benefactor. PSG get 100 mil per year and UEFA fined them 50 million. We can argue the Premier League is a more world wide league etc.. We also get increased revenue from increased sales of shirts, tickets etc.. due to take over inside first year. That kind of improved level of income means we have circa 80-100 million more to spend on wages per season than we would normally have. That can make an impact rapidly in the Premier League and revenues can grow if that can get us into the Champions League. Ok but city's deal was for 35m and seemed illegitimate. And randy waved interest payments already. As previously mentioned there are now moves that Uefa are making that change the amount both clubs can receive on a deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's easy to 'circumvent' FFP, all it needs is for the owner to gift the club money rather than loan. Not a loophole, that's what the owner is allowed to do up to 45m a season. That can't be a loan, it has to be a straight cash injection that he's unlikely to see back. Anything over the 45m doesn't count for the purposes of FFP, so if the owner put in 100m and the club spent the lot, they'd still be down 55m by FFP rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 SuttonPaul are you FFP spokesman? You sure seem to know a lot about it. So in a nutshell even when we are taken over our spending will not be that high until we generate more money? But we can't generate more money without success which requires significant initial investment. Seems like a real catch 22 situation created by FFP. Why do you think the big clubs voted it in ..it maintains the status quo.Last thing Liverpool etc want is a rich owner turning us or someone else into the next City or Chelsea and stealing revenue and fans from them Actually the clubs voted the motion in when it was about clubs accruing debt like Leeds or Portsmouth not like PSG or city where the owners have imposed no debts on the clubs they have simply invested. It's a bit like Britain entering the EEC which has morphed into today's eu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) What the Keane appointment says about the takeover to me is this: The fact that Keane has not given up his day job with Ireland to come here suggests he thinks it is a temporary role. He has not been appointed by new owners, Lambert needs someone to take preasesson training and help prepare the squad for the new season, Ireland are not doing anything for a while so Keane can help out. When the takeover eventually happens (who knows when) Keane will go back to his day job. It can't be very close though or we would not have bothered with a temp appointment and just brought in a real one when we can offer the security of new owners. Edited June 3, 2014 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's easy to 'circumvent' FFP, all it needs is for the owner to gift the club money rather than loan. Though no owner does that because loaning your club money is potential very lucrative for themselves! The reality is there's no such thing as a free lunch! Nope that's not true either that is counted as an equity injection and as such can be done to the limits mentioned. If the losses are done through debt the amounts that can be lost is actually much much lower so instead of 45 million euros for the Uefa one over the space of three years it turns into 5 million euros Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 By my calculations We lost 51m last year, 3/4 of which will be wiped out by the new tv deal and our finishing position. Remove Ireland and a few others from the wage bill and we will be pretty close to breaking even. So in essence we need to finish higher than 15th with the current squad to make money. Our fan base (as we saw in 07-09) can increase average attendance by 4,000 per game. 4,000 x18 x£30 = £2.1m Add to that stadium sponsor: well the emirates a decade ago was what £30m per year? I would expect us to reasonably get away with £7m per year deal. So right there it's £10m per year extra if we finish 15th. So we could in theory have 55m a year to play with in terms of keeping in with FFP. So let's say that new found £10m from excited villa fans coming back to VP and a cheeky. It reasonable stadium sponsorship deal comes in. If you assume out of our squad we want to have 10 happily well paid people as a core to the squad, we can use that money to inflate their salary by £17k a week each. Or more so for fewer players. So we lift the salary band for our top players, compete a bit better there, but we are now back to break even, or a slight loss. Still gives us £25m per year for fees and be well within any FFP RULES. £25m gets us one really good player and we can offer much better salaries than before. Hell £25m gets us Milner back, how much better would our team be with just him? Next summer £25m on a Cabaye or lulaku or Cahill? Not saying those but £25m gets you players like that. We don't need £60m a year, we need to offer much better salaries and spend half that or less. Accounts were previously worked out including this years TV deal we can spend including all player costs so not just fees of 20 to 25m without making a loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 SuttonPaul are you FFP spokesman? You sure seem to know a lot about it. So in a nutshell even when we are taken over our spending will not be that high until we generate more money? But we can't generate more money without success which requires significant initial investment. Seems like a real catch 22 situation created by FFP. I've been moaning about it for ages and moaning is the correct term to use. Yes it is a catch 22 but to make the situation worse on what you just said on top of all the previously mentioned regulations you can only increase the wage bill by 4 million per year unless you get bigger commercial deals to counteract that so if we sold naming rights to vp for 10m a year we could get a 14m increase the following year. If we were already getting 10m and it became 11m in that scenario we could increase it by 5m only. The whole thing stinks to be honest 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 So we made a 52m loss based on the new deal? Now I can see why no one would want to buy us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Dream on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villatillidie1980 Posted June 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted June 3, 2014 For me a deal is surely close to completion!?!? If Keane was in the running for the Celtic job and has now removed himself from the list, for what? A number two role at a club in uncertainty? I can't see it myself. I think that he's had assurances from the new owners - I hope so anyway!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts