CVByrne Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 36 minutes ago, duke313 said: Isn't the Premier League TV money split evenly already? How would Premier League having a streaming service change that? If anything it risks the bigger clubs negotiating their own deal similar to how Barca and Real had in Spain. No, it was more evenly split in the past but the bigger clubs have now made sure more money goes to finishing positions that used to previously. Also more to how many of your games are televised which again skews towards top teams. They have also done that to UEFA too for the UCL in that historically how well you've done in the competition grants you added money, just handed to them. The goal is to help enshrine the clubs currently at the top there for good. They hate the idea of another City/PSG and Newcastle is exactly that to them. Salary cap at % of revenue is the most effective way at stopping anyone new from joining the party. Only the 14 v 6 of the Premier League has a chance to right this and with a growing strength and leadership from teams like ourselves and Newcastle etc. the reshaping of the distribution of wealth in the Premier League when the big financial jump to streaming comes is the only hope for the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 2 hours ago, CVByrne said: No, it was more evenly split in the past but the bigger clubs have now made sure more money goes to finishing positions that used to previously. Also more to how many of your games are televised which again skews towards top teams. They have also done that to UEFA too for the UCL in that historically how well you've done in the competition grants you added money, just handed to them. The goal is to help enshrine the clubs currently at the top there for good. They hate the idea of another City/PSG and Newcastle is exactly that to them. thats what ive seen too TV money gets broken down in to 5 categories, from those 5 3 of them are equally spread across the league, the other 2 are league position and then related to how many times you are on TV, so for example Norwich are on TV 8 times and therefore get £12m whereas Liverpool are on 25 times and get £37.5m (it is about £1.5m per game) the total disparity from top to bottom is about £50m a year the difference between villa and say liverpool, city and utd is about £40m and the difference between us and spurs / arsenal who you can say we're trying to catch is about £25m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 5 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: With these financial restrictions, top 10. With an occasional run at top 6-7 every few seasons if everything goes our way and one of the big 6 clubs shoots itself in the foot. The revenue gap between us and top 6 is just too big. Unfortunately thanks to Lerner we wasted 10 years from 2010 onwards when the new financial structure of football was shaped and teams like Spurs managed to get on the gravy train and massively increase their revenues. We moved backwards. It will be almost impossible now to bridge that gap. It will be interesting to see how Newcastle try to get around it and get amongst them. They have much better chances than us thanks to almost unlimited resources and political clout of a whole state behind them. Get around it they will, they will inflate their actual income through eye watering deals with companies connected to their owners, that are just a means to get around the rules and will like Citeh did just lawyer up, and take UEFA to court if they threaten to penalise them for doing so. I trust our own owners will also have something in mind to avoid us being penalised for trying to get amongst the greedy six. EEFA are just pandering to the breakaway clubs to try to keep them in the fold and by giving them what they want, they will risk ruining the PL as a competition, if in fact it still really is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 6 hours ago, John said: Get around it they will, they will inflate their actual income through eye watering deals with companies connected to their owners, that are just a means to get around the rules and will like Citeh did just lawyer up, and take UEFA to court if they threaten to penalise them for doing so. I trust our own owners will also have something in mind to avoid us being penalised for trying to get amongst the greedy six. EEFA are just pandering to the breakaway clubs to try to keep them in the fold and by giving them what they want, they will risk ruining the PL as a competition, if in fact it still really is. 100% this. Clubs that want to progress simply pay to get around the financial restrictions on investment. I am confident we now have a smart ownership that knows how to buy their way around FFP or whatever latest idiocy comes from UEFA/ the FA etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 23 hours ago, John said: Get around it they will, they will inflate their actual income through eye watering deals with companies connected to their owners, that are just a means to get around the rules and will like Citeh did just lawyer up, and take UEFA to court if they threaten to penalise them for doing so. I trust our own owners will also have something in mind to avoid us being penalised for trying to get amongst the greedy six. EEFA are just pandering to the breakaway clubs to try to keep them in the fold and by giving them what they want, they will risk ruining the PL as a competition, if in fact it still really is. I mean we're already expected to uncritically accept that a team I've never seen anyone wearing the shirt of in public now earns more than any other. For these numbers to work pretty much every child must support them as it's beyond rare for an adult to change allegiance and they were bought less than 15 years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 On 23/03/2022 at 03:39, WallisFrizz said: It makes you wonder what is the point of supporting your club. Can barely hope to win a domestic competition because 9/10 times they will be won by the same few clubs, if we can’t aim for Europe, what is the actual point (other than love and enjoyment of the game)? What can we actually hope to achieve? Its why a Super League wouldn't actually be the end of the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 8 minutes ago, maqroll said: Its why a Super League wouldn't actually be the end of the world. I take your point, but that's not how the TV companies and advertisers would see it. Those left behind and outside the Super League would soon be members of a slightly improved Championship, as I'm sure that in a season or two those SL clubs would grow tired of playing the likes of Brighton and Palace, or would field their second string, in what they would consider a less important league to their precious SL. The fans of those clubs might not want it, but their owners certainly do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 1 hour ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said: Thanks, good video. Dave is very knowledgeable bloke. I agree with him that something is iffy with our amortisation. As I suggested in my posts before we appear to be not using linear amortisation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Silvers Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: Thanks, good video. Dave is very knowledgeable bloke. I agree with him that something is iffy with our amortisation. As I suggested in my posts before we appear to be not using linear amortisation. Absolutely and I completely agree, just to make sure that we are both on the same page, would you mind explaining exactly what he/you mean here and please try to pretend that you are speaking to a 4 year old child. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Czarnikjak Posted March 24, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted March 24, 2022 3 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said: Absolutely and I completely agree, just to make sure that we are both on the same page, would you mind explaining exactly what he/you mean here and please try to pretend that you are speaking to a 4 year old child. So normally if you sign a player for £40m on 4 year contract, for accounting purposes you amortise this purchase evenly, £10m each year for 4 years (this goes down as a cost for FFP purposes). I think we are front loading the amortisation (ie £15m in year one, and thus less in coming years). This is to maximise our FFP allowed losses now and leave more wiggle room in the future from FFP standpoint. These are muddy accounting waters, but I fully trust Purslow knows what he is doing. Derby got done for doing the exact opposite, accounting less amortisation upfront to be able to spent more at the time when they were pushing for promotion. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Silvers Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 8 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: So normally if you sign a player for £40m on 4 year contract, for accounting purposes you amortise this purchase evenly, £10m each year for 4 years (this goes down as a cost for FFP purposes). I think we are front loading the amortisation (ie £15m in year one, and thus less in coming years). This is to maximise our FFP allowed losses now and leave more wiggle room in the future from FFP standpoint. These are muddy accounting waters, but I fully trust Purslow knows what he is doing. Derby got done for doing the exact opposite, accounting less amortisation upfront to be able to spent more at the time when they were pushing for promotion. Completely agree, exactly what I was thinking. Thanks Mr. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 2 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: So normally if you sign a player for £40m on 4 year contract, for accounting purposes you amortise this purchase evenly, £10m each year for 4 years (this goes down as a cost for FFP purposes). I think we are front loading the amortisation (ie £15m in year one, and thus less in coming years). This is to maximise our FFP allowed losses now and leave more wiggle room in the future from FFP standpoint. These are muddy accounting waters, but I fully trust Purslow knows what he is doing. Derby got done for doing the exact opposite, accounting less amortisation upfront to be able to spent more at the time when they were pushing for promotion. tbh tho, if a balanced amortization is the "norm", but we are front loading it, from a finances perspective i think if we can afford it, thats a) the much cleverer way to do it, and b) arguably from a compliance perspective, its not hard to argue front loading is actually totally ok/legit. Especially as with front loading, you cant be accused of trying to kick the costs down the road, you are front loading and sucking them up early. Interesting if true. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 13 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: Thanks, good video. Dave is very knowledgeable bloke. I agree with him that something is iffy with our amortisation. As I suggested in my posts before we appear to be not using linear amortisation. Amortisation. HDE would be so pleased that we are still talking about that, one of his very favourite words that one, I'm sure he coined the phrase, much like he invented the bicycle kick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 13 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: Thanks, good video. Dave is very knowledgeable bloke. I agree with him that something is iffy with our amortisation. As I suggested in my posts before we appear to be not using linear amortisation. We're only allowed to deviate if we front load it though vs the standard spread over term of contract. We may have taken as large a loss in the 19/20 season as we could by front loading amortisation into that year thus it dropping last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 12 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: So normally if you sign a player for £40m on 4 year contract, for accounting purposes you amortise this purchase evenly, £10m each year for 4 years (this goes down as a cost for FFP purposes). I think we are front loading the amortisation (ie £15m in year one, and thus less in coming years). This is to maximise our FFP allowed losses now and leave more wiggle room in the future from FFP standpoint. These are muddy accounting waters, but I fully trust Purslow knows what he is doing. Derby got done for doing the exact opposite, accounting less amortisation upfront to be able to spent more at the time when they were pushing for promotion. It's why we are now amortising 80m this current year which is due to the Jack windfall we want to best offset against that by reducing the future amortisation. It's very smart accounting imo. The whole Covid losses element is a grey area too which I'm sure clubs (ourselves included) have exploited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 NSWE have pumped £400m into the club and when you add in their purchase price they're around the £450m mark total invested. West Ham are valued at around £700m based on their recent investment and they don't own a football ground like we do. I'd say NSWE are up £100m+ at least on their total investment into AVFC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Silvers Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 21 minutes ago, CVByrne said: NSWE have pumped £400m into the club and when you add in their purchase price they're around the £450m mark total invested. West Ham are valued at around £700m based on their recent investment and they don't own a football ground like we do. I'd say NSWE are up £100m+ at least on their total investment into AVFC I would swap Trezeguet for West Ham, I'd say we are worth 5billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 29, 2022 Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2022 So, Everton are writing off around £200m over the last three seasons as "Covid related losses" which don't count toward FFP. They're also deducting their investment in a new stadium and improvements to their training ground, in order to make their actual losses of £372m into FFP losses of just under £105m over three years - within the allowed limit. If we take the same path, we've lost around £200m over the three year period - can we write all of that off as Covid related? Can we then add on the cost of rebuilding Bodymoor and the Academy and the minor alterations of Villa Park? If so, then I reckon we're in an FFP profit of about £35m - allowing us to spend £140m in the summer (without any other investment or income) and still stay well within FFP rules. Surely that can't be right? How on earth do Everton lose £200m over three seasons due to Covid? Their total matchday income over that period in normal circumstances is less than £60m and they've been able to sell tickets for half of it - I have a feeling the TV rebate was only around £35m - where has the other £120m+ that Covid has forced them to miss out on come from? I'm not sure whether to be outraged that Everton are trying to get away with this or pleased because if they can, then we can too. FFP is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: If we take the same path, we've lost around £200m over the three year period - can we write all of that off as Covid related? No, we already submitted our accounts for Covid affected seasons and can't retrospectively change them now. If I recall our total losses due to covid were accounted as less than £100m Everton are taking a piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts