ender4 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 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. The Emirates sponsorship deal was £8m a year which included Shirt Sponsorship. It was an awful deal, but Arsenal needed the money at the time to finance their new stadium. Chelsea have been trying to sell stadium sponsorship for their stadium for £5m with no takers. Newcastle have been trying to sell stadium sponsorship for their stadium for £1m. There is no way we'd get more than £1m a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 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. The Emirates sponsorship deal was £8m a year which included Shirt Sponsorship. It was an awful deal, but Arsenal needed the money at the time to finance their new stadium. Chelsea have been trying to sell stadium sponsorship for their stadium for £5m with no takers. Newcastle have been trying to sell stadium sponsorship for their stadium for £1m. There is no way we'd get more than £1m a season. I can see Red Bull getting involved. Jim on here has been hinting for months, maybe this is their route into the prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 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. The Emirates sponsorship deal was £8m a year which included Shirt Sponsorship. It was an awful deal, but Arsenal needed the money at the time to finance their new stadium. Chelsea have been trying to sell stadium sponsorship for their stadium for £5m with no takers. Newcastle have been trying to sell stadium sponsorship for their stadium for £1m. There is no way we'd get more than £1m a season. Unless Saudi Air sponsor the stadium post a Saudi takeover. People forget accountancy rules mean a players transfer fee and wages get combined into the life of the contract and split over the years. For example, we buy a player for 10 million and pay him 50k per week for 5 years, that goes down as 4.6mil per year into our accounts. Not 12.6mil for first year + 2.6mil in wages alone for next 4 years. This means we can speculate with player aquisitions and cull of players now with the boosted revenues in 3 years time via increased income from sponsorship, gate receipts etc.. If we fail to get to Europe in 3 years and fall foul of Premier League fair play rules what do you think the money league will do? A fine, no points deduction or anything like that. A new very wealthy owner can make rapid improvements to our club as we have a fan base and potential fan base big enough to help us back to the top 6 in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 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 I agree that FFP is there to make sure nobody interferes with the big clubs. But we could get a £100m interest free loan from a new owner which we will pay back £1 per year over the next 100 million years? Anyway, buying players is not a cost. It's only changing one asset (cash) into another kind kind of asset (players). So buying five £20m players would only cost us the amortization cost each year, which on 4 year contracts would be £25m. each year. Which again will improve the value of our intangible assets, such as goodwill, so it might not even be £25m per year. However, they need to get paid. And if we are paying £80k p/w, it's another £20m which is a real cost per year. So buying five £20m players would mean a yearly cost of £40-45m (amortization+wages). And if they improve our results, we will see our income increase as well. From prize money, gate receipts and sponsorship deals, etc. If we invest in young, up and coming players, there is a chance we will have a profit on them. Playing a £20m players for three years would cost us £15m in amortization. But if he is then sold for €30m, it would mean a £25m profit the year he is sold, because his initial £20m cost has been paid for through amortization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Kinda just said what I said there Silent_Bob Essentially though if we spend 50 mil on 5 players on 4-5 year contracts and pay them 50-60k it'll be an added cost of 25 mil per year on our books. Which isn't that much added financially to the club, hell it's way inside the prem FFP rules. Add to that we can let all the final Bomb squad guys go now and the financial hit will not impact us down the line. The idea to get the wage bill down so low means its a good base for a new owner to come in and invest in lots of new players without the deadweight holding back the club. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I wouldn't, Lambert deserves a third season at the very least! A Villa fan with a good sense of reason, a rare find indeed! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie09 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I wouldn't, Lambert deserves a third season at the very least! I agree PL deserves another season, however I'm questioning their football knowledge if their idea of a dream team is Lambert and Keane. I'd hope for a more proven assistant to compliment PL as I'm concerned Keane is too similar to Lambert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 To add to my above, say we get up to top 7 in the league that's an extra 14 mil, then add an increased attendance of 4000 per game, Throw in 5 more cup games due to better team = another 8 mil in total revenue. We can then at least with a middle eastern benefactor get a sponsorship increase of 40 million per year via naming rights and other sponsorship that will get by FFP as being ok. This is before all loan repayments are wiped from our books and the end of the bomb squad costs which are in the millions (remember player cost + wages over life of contract ie Bent has wages and a 4 million loss in asset value associated with him per year) I'd put that at 15 million total of remaining bomb squad cost to the club per year. That's a revenue increase of about 77 million per year to us to work with inside FFP with just a need to be in top 7/8 in the league each year. Add an average ticket price increase (mainly through a premium or corporate price) of £5 in a few years time and you add 5 million per year to revenue. Get us into the 82 million per year to play with again all inside FFP. Now lets say 10 million player gets paid 50k per week and 20 million player gets 100k (obviously it'll probably be more like 60k and 90k etc.. but to work an average out) Say the length of contracts is 4 years. (so 10 million player costs 5 mil per year on books, 20 mil player costs 10 mil per year and linerally from there) That means we can spend 160 million on players and be around break even per year with only needing top 7/8 in the League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I just wanna beat liverpool and finish above the albion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Am I on my own, or does all this FFP blurb just cloud the issue of who might or might not be buying the club? Its not a moan, I just find it all a little bewildering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Am I on my own, or does all this FFP blurb just cloud the issue of who might or might not be buying the club? Its not a moan, I just find it all a little bewildering. I think it has a big impact in 2 ways: - A rich sugar daddy who wants a plaything or wants to make us compete at the very top end of the league won't be buying us. - a few Villa fans are under the impression that if someone worth billions buys us, that he will spend lots. That again is unlikely due to FFP, and so makes the net worth of the new owner less important and good business and football sense much more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Am I on my own, or does all this FFP blurb just cloud the issue of who might or might not be buying the club? Its not a moan, I just find it all a little bewildering. Well, FFP and it's implications will be a factor in if a mega rich owner like City & PSG have are interested or if it'll be an owner to run it solely as a business ala Liverpool, Arsenal etc.. The former may find it unattractive now due to FFP meaning no big sugar daddy. But we're trying to figure out how much of an issue it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Kinda just said what I said there Silent_Bob I know. I started writing it before you posted At least we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Am I on my own, or does all this FFP blurb just cloud the issue of who might or might not be buying the club? Its not a moan, I just find it all a little bewildering. I think it has a big impact in 2 ways: - A rich sugar daddy who wants a plaything or wants to make us compete at the very top end of the league won't be buying us. - a few Villa fans are under the impression that if someone worth billions buys us, that he will spend lots. That again is unlikely due to FFP, and so makes the net worth of the new owner less important and good business and football sense much more important. Now that I understand. Ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 A type of takeover by the Saudis or Dubai is still going to result in more income via big sponsorship deals which run close to the limits of FFP. Which is exactly the kind of owners we want. It can mean circa 40-50 million per year more in income which translates into an extra 80-100mil worth of players we can afford in our squad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) When does the Dafabet deal end? Edit - This season. This is another sponsorship deal a new owner can invest in. Edited June 4, 2014 by GENTLEMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 The only thing Lambert deserves is a public flogging for dishing up two full seasons of utter dross Even McLeish couldn't top that 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 "Even McLeish couldn't top that"The guy that gave 37 year old shay given a 5 year deal??? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Wrong thread guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 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 I agree that FFP is there to make sure nobody interferes with the big clubs. But we could get a £100m interest free loan from a new owner which we will pay back £1 per year over the next 100 million years? Anyway, buying players is not a cost. It's only changing one asset (cash) into another kind kind of asset (players). So buying five £20m players would only cost us the amortization cost each year, which on 4 year contracts would be £25m. each year. Which again will improve the value of our intangible assets, such as goodwill, so it might not even be £25m per year. However, they need to get paid. And if we are paying £80k p/w, it's another £20m which is a real cost per year. So buying five £20m players would mean a yearly cost of £40-45m (amortization+wages). And if they improve our results, we will see our income increase as well. From prize money, gate receipts and sponsorship deals, etc. If we invest in young, up and coming players, there is a chance we will have a profit on them. Playing a £20m players for three years would cost us £15m in amortization. But if he is then sold for €30m, it would mean a £25m profit the year he is sold, because his initial £20m cost has been paid for through amortization. It doesn't work like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts