HeyAnty Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 How is Fox going to increase turnover if we are not entertaining to watch? The fans are turning away from Villa park in there droves. I think there was just over 20k at Blackpool game. Or if you want to be positive, he know he has a core support of over 20,000 odd who will probably watch Villa no matter how bad they are. If we never started to be entertaining again at home we should be looking at 35k+ crowds again regularly. But we're not going to be entertaining and averaging bigger crowds without investment first. I'm not sure what fox can realistically do. I imagine more and more teams in the league are starting to make more money than us from commercial revenue. Yes its a catch 22 situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 We came 22nd on the latest delliotte football rich list with reported revenue of 133m euros which is about 102m pounds. Is that much of an increase from the year before?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcTheObsession Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I believe we generated around £85m last year, so a fair increase, although I assume a fair bit, if not all of that is down to the new TV deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think the aim is to get wages about 60% of turnover which I assume would leave the remainder for purchases if we were to be self sufficient. Under ONeill wage rises outstripped revenue rises massively and I think was upto about 80/90% at some stages. Hopefully Tom Fox can get the big deals to enable the revenue to increase which would then enable greater investment into the team. It is a case of chicken and egg. What do you need first? Success to generate money or money to generate success? It seems we have tried the throwing money at it and never capitalised by generating enough money to make it sustainable and now we are trying the opposite. Maybe with hindsight Lerner should have gone down the middle and built us up a bit slower I know for one I enjoyed the first few years but these last few have been torture. FFP hasn't helped our situation as any person who bought us couldn't invest because of previous losses so hopefully from this summer we will look a different prospect. A club in the Premier League making a profit on underperforing revenue streams and no need for immediate layout on facilities. Even if we aren't sold we should have a decent amount to spend without sales or Lerner putting his hand in his pocket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted January 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) KHV, on 22 Jan 2015 - 11:25 AM, said: We came 22nd on the latest delliotte football rich list with reported revenue of 133m euros which is about 102m pounds. Is that much of an increase from the year before?? About £20m no? Edited January 22, 2015 by romavillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 "It is a case of chicken and egg". Agreed dn1982. But we cannot afford to buy either a chicken or an egg. You can see why we needed to bring in a fox to bring in some significant non-SKY revenue given that clubs like Everton & West Ham were above us in the last Delloitte list and there was only the odd few million euros between Southapton, Sunderland, Swansea, Stoke and Villa. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yet even with higher turnover we can't offer wages other mid table teams can. Is that because we have fringe players and non players like Bent and Zog in high wages and therefore can't inject that into offering new players of quality top dollar? Or are out costs much higher (aside from wages). Than other clubs. And if so where and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I believe our non-football staffing costs are particularly high, for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Will our poor attendances this season make a difference? Doing the maths in my head quickly I think it would only be a few million at worst. Be interesting to know what our wages to turnover ratio is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 23, 2015 Administrator Share Posted January 23, 2015 I think the aim is to get wages about 60% of turnover which I assume would leave the remainder for purchases if we were to be self sufficient. Well yes, assuming we don't pay any bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 once bents gone thank god, that frees up a huge amount of wages. given was a ridiculous signing by that muppet mclose. 5 year contract wtf??? I'm not defending the fat lazy clearing in the woods but I'd imagine that during the half season where he was actually good and kept us up he probably paid for himself given the alternative was relegation. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to get the player in you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Swiss Rambler should be sniffing around us soon. He did quite a big piece on us a few years ago when we dropped our spending off a cliff. I think come this summer we lose Bent and maybe Zog? surely between those two that's 100k a week. 5m a year for two players we hardly use. I would certainly use that to try and retain a few players. depends on movitvation really but you could quite easily offer Teke or Delph £80k a week to at least say "they tried" to keep him. still would leave us about 40k left for a new player or just to save generally. Also am sure we have a few other players finishing contracts soon. With youth players set to take a couple of squad rotation positions, surely that means we can keep core player base but offer slightly better salaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Will our poor attendances this season make a difference? Doing the maths in my head quickly I think it would only be a few million at worst. Be interesting to know what our wages to turnover ratio is now. Yep. This is the biggest myth in modern football. Compared to the SKY revenue bums of seats means diddly squat. Assume we sold 25k season tickets @ £500. (£12.5m) and that every other game was a total sell out. so c. 15k tickets at 40 x 19 home games. (£11.4m) So absolute BEST case scenario is a full PL season with a packed ground pulls in £23.9m, 30% of what is currently paid by SKY just for turning up. The reality is we don't fill the ground every week and don't get close to 25k season tickets sold - so a packed VP is probably work what? 20-25% of what Sky chuck our way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I believe our non-football staffing costs are particularly high, for some reason. Yes, I had heard that. Surely it will occur to someone, Fox perhaps, to carry out an audit of non-playing staff, to ascertain the reason for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Swiss Rambler should be sniffing around us soon. He did quite a big piece on us a few years ago when we dropped our spending off a cliff. Don't hold your breath. He's not done much at all in the last year and has said what he does from now on won't be the same type of approach. Risso will need to figure it out instead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted January 23, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2015 Swiss Rambler should be sniffing around us soon. He did quite a big piece on us a few years ago when we dropped our spending off a cliff. Don't hold your breath. He's not done much at all in the last year and has said what he does from now on won't be the same type of approach. Risso will need to figure it out instead. Surely Brumstopdogs would be the ideal candidate, I hear he's great with numbers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) .... Edited January 23, 2015 by Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Will our poor attendances this season make a difference? Doing the maths in my head quickly I think it would only be a few million at worst. Be interesting to know what our wages to turnover ratio is now. Yep. This is the biggest myth in modern football. Compared to the SKY revenue bums of seats means diddly squat. Assume we sold 25k season tickets @ £500. (£12.5m) and that every other game was a total sell out. so c. 15k tickets at 40 x 19 home games. (£11.4m) So absolute BEST case scenario is a full PL season with a packed ground pulls in £23.9m, 30% of what is currently paid by SKY just for turning up. The reality is we don't fill the ground every week and don't get close to 25k season tickets sold - so a packed VP is probably work what? 20-25% of what Sky chuck our way? Whilst this is true your ticket income is vitally important when you consider the Premier League FFP rules. One of those rules state that a club can only increase their wage bill by more than 4M per year if they can fund the uplift through non-TV money. So those lost millions from ticket revenue could have helped fund our wage bill. This is taken from an article printed just today: - Clubs may only increase wage bill by average of £4m annually, unless they demonstrate uplift generated beyond Premier League TV money distribution - Voted for by clubs in 2013 and introduced last season, they addressed fears that increase in TV cash would flow straight to players and agents - Does not apply to clubs whose wage bills were below £52m last term, £56m this season and £60m in 2015-16 (I'm not sure our wage bill was only 52M last year so the rules would apply to us). Article here: http://www.cityam.com/207771/obscure-wage-bill-rules-blamed-january-transfers-shortage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 once bents gone thank god, that frees up a huge amount of wages. given was a ridiculous signing by that muppet mclose. 5 year contract wtf??? I'm not defending the fat lazy clearing in the woods but I'd imagine that during the half season where he was actually good and kept us up he probably paid for himself given the alternative was relegation. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to get the player in you need. Disagree. People talk as if Darren Bent was the only striker who existed in the World when we bought him. He's been one of the pin-ups of our downfall - stupid purchase on a stupid contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 once bents gone thank god, that frees up a huge amount of wages. given was a ridiculous signing by that muppet mclose. 5 year contract wtf??? I'm not defending the fat lazy clearing in the woods but I'd imagine that during the half season where he was actually good and kept us up he probably paid for himself given the alternative was relegation. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to get the player in you need. Disagree. People talk as if Darren Bent was the only striker who existed in the World when we bought him. He's been one of the pin-ups of our downfall - stupid purchase on a stupid contract. Hindsight a lovely thing!! He was bought at a time when Houllier was getting us to play a more passing type of game with wingers who crossed the ball and all we needed was a goalscorer. He came he scored we stayed up Houllier left and the football changed aswell as the supply line. This place nearly melted when it broke he was signing. If you pay big fees you pay big wages simple as that. There is a load of other players bought that have had less impact and been worse signings by a mile. For me the biggest is Given why let Friedel leave then have to pay a fee and bigger wages for the same quality?? Madness!! Luckily we are near the end of all the big wasteful contracts and I hope we start using a bit of foresight in such things in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts