VillaParkAvenue Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Sam-AVFC said: I don't see how our wage bill could be £170m. If it is we have been giving out insane contracts. I also thought it sounded high (it came from previous pages in this thread) and would imply a huge average salary. Anylme remember what it was last year, in total or men’s first team only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 25, 2022 Moderator Share Posted August 25, 2022 3 hours ago, VillaParkAvenue said: I also thought it sounded high (it came from previous pages in this thread) and would imply a huge average salary. Anylme remember what it was last year, in total or men’s first team only? https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05891280/filing-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 5 hours ago, DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth said: I am still absolutely amazed that no one has gone to CAS and argued that these regulations are Anti-Business practices. If some rich idiot wants to throw £300mil at a business to try and grow it that is a protected right for them to do so. Is football a business first or sport first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsky_11 Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 3 hours ago, VillaParkAvenue said: I also thought it sounded high (it came from previous pages in this thread) and would imply a huge average salary. Anylme remember what it was last year, in total or men’s first team only? £170m might have come from me earlier in the thread. It was a rough estimate of where we might be for 22/23 accounts, based on estimated transfer/renewal activity in 21/22 and predicted activity this summer, which is obviously not yet concluded (and wasn't even started when I did the projection). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 22 hours ago, danceoftheshamen said: Hmmmn, who would have ever thought it? Shame we're not a London club and get given a stadium or something....................DOH! So a huge well done to them for destroying every Youth team friendly club as this will mean clubs will now neglect them. Corrupt *****ers There is no way that is true. Infrastructure can't be included in P&L, there will be caveats otherwise clubs would not be able to build new stadium. I smell some clickbait reporting with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Rightdm00 said: Is football a business first or sport first? It’s both, one doesn’t exist without the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said: There is no way that is true. Infrastructure can't be included in P&L, there will be caveats otherwise clubs would not be able to build new stadium. I smell some clickbait reporting with this Well the caveat is that the cost of the stadium gets spread over say 25 years. So if you spend £200m on rebuilding part of a stadium, then it’s hits your annual allowance by £8m per year. This is fine for the large clubs with £400m+ revenue as that’s a small % of their annual allowance. But a huge deal for clubs like Everton, Leicester and Villa where an £8m handicap every year can be the difference between getting that season changing player or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 1 minute ago, ender4 said: Well the caveat is that the cost of the stadium gets spread over say 25 years. So if you spend £200m on rebuilding part of a stadium, then it’s hits your annual allowance by £8m per year. This is fine for the large clubs with £400m+ revenue as that’s a small % of their annual allowance. But a huge deal for clubs like Everton, Leicester and Villa where an £8m handicap every year can be the difference between getting that season changing player or not. Quote A licensee may adjust aggregated football earnings for a monitoring period if relevant expenses include any of the below... Pg 104 a. Expenditure directly attributable to youth development activities Pg 107 e. Finance costs directly attributable to the construction and substantial modification of tangible assets Directly from UEFA rules for Financial Sustainability 2022. Youth dev and infrastructure is still allowable for FFP/P&S/Sustainability calculations https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0274-14dc03ef33b9-3e2caa872860-1000/20220408_club_licensing_and_financial_sustainability_regulations_2022-en.pdf 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 5 minutes ago, ender4 said: Well the caveat is that the cost of the stadium gets spread over say 25 years. So if you spend £200m on rebuilding part of a stadium, then it’s hits your annual allowance by £8m per year. This is fine for the large clubs with £400m+ revenue as that’s a small % of their annual allowance. But a huge deal for clubs like Everton, Leicester and Villa where an £8m handicap every year can be the difference between getting that season changing player or not. Where is that from? See my comment above with link to the UEFA rules book showing the clauses that specifically allow youth dev and infrastructure as exemptions for calculations 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Rightdm00 said: Is football a business first or sport first? It is a business, its product is sport and its main revenue models are selling broadcasting rights, advertising / sponsorship, player sales and match day revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 11 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said: It is a business, its product is sport and its main revenue models are selling broadcasting rights, advertising / sponsorship, player sales and match day revenues. One has to be the priority. If it's business then a club moving to a new city because they will make more money shouldn't be an issue. Actually it should be applauded. If it's a business then the PL would be right to tell the EFL to stick it and not send a single £ down the pyramid. An owner like Mike Ashley would be celebrated for keeping spending down and turning a profit when selling. As a business things like competitive balance amongst competitors, tradition and public good would not come into play. For professional sport to survive sporting issues have to be the priority or at least it must be presented as such. Otherwise outside of the clubs who can "purchase" a title why would fans of the other clubs even show up. Also, if football is a business first then the ESL is inevitable. No way around it. The top teams in Europe will make more money without any real negative draw back to their business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 Just now, Rightdm00 said: One has to be the priority. If it's business then a club moving to a new city because they will make more money shouldn't be an issue. Actually it should be applauded. If it's a business then the PL would be right to tell the EFL to stick it and not send a single £ down the pyramid. An owner like Mike Ashley would be celebrated for keeping spending down and turning a profit when selling. As a business things like competitive balance amongst competitors, tradition and public good would not come into play. For professional sport to survive sporting issues have to be the priority or at least it must be presented as such. Otherwise outside of the clubs who can "purchase" a title why would fans of the other clubs even show up. Also, if football is a business first then the ESL is inevitable. No way around it. The top teams in Europe will make more money without any real negative draw back to their business model. But the product of the business is sport. The better the sport and more successful the sport the more money the business makes. Each place u finish higher up the PL table u get an extra 3m quid or so. The further u get in cups the more money u get, the more gate receipts and the more TV money. The more successful the higher the value of sponsorship deals and the more commercial revenue u make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 On 24/08/2022 at 20:08, Sam-AVFC said: Basically forces us to borrow money for work on the stadium and balance the repayments with increased revenue. I'm struggling to see how more borrowing benefits a clubs long term future. The club doesn't own the stadium. NSWE do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, CVByrne said: The club doesn't own the stadium. NSWE do Good point. Presumably the 'market rent' in calculations would have to be increased when the stadium is improved, which should also be offset by more revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 19 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: Good point. Presumably the 'market rent' in calculations would have to be increased when the stadium is improved, which should also be offset by more revenue. Yes, if u rent the stadium the rental cost is subject to FFP. However, with a long term rental agreement it is not that unusual for the tenant to pay for upgrades to the premises and not impact rental agreement amount for the term of the contract. It would be nice if the club could use the redevelopment to buy the stadium back or get equity in the stadium. NSWE only paid AVFC 56m for the stadium and the redevelopment costs will be double that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: Good point. Presumably the 'market rent' in calculations would have to be increased when the stadium is improved, which should also be offset by more revenue. West Ham have a ridiculously favourable deal on their stadium rental so we'll get a better one. Edited August 25, 2022 by CVByrne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said: Yes, if u rent the stadium the rental cost is subject to FFP. However, with a long term rental agreement it is not that unusual for the tenant to pay for upgrades to the premises and not impact rental agreement amount for the term of the contract. It would be nice if the club could use the redevelopment to buy the stadium back or get equity in the stadium. NSWE only paid AVFC 56m for the stadium and the redevelopment costs will be double that The club if it's ever sold will be sold with the Stadium so only a new owner might merge it back as part of a purchase deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 6 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said: Yes, if u rent the stadium the rental cost is subject to FFP. However, with a long term rental agreement it is not that unusual for the tenant to pay for upgrades to the premises and not impact rental agreement amount for the term of the contract. It would be nice if the club could use the redevelopment to buy the stadium back or get equity in the stadium. NSWE only paid AVFC 56m for the stadium and the redevelopment costs will be double that Over here tenant's improvements can't be included in rent reviews for 21 years. Kind of irrelevant in this situation though as the landlord and tenant are connected parties and I doubt NSWE will be looking to gouge us on the rent, if there even are rent review provisions. It wouldn't be unusual for the rent of similar assets on the open market to be directly linked to turn over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, CVByrne said: The club if it's ever sold will be sold with the Stadium so only a new owner might merge it back as part of a purchase deal Why? If we could own the stadium we wouldn't have the rental costs on our accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted August 25, 2022 Share Posted August 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, CVByrne said: The club if it's ever sold will be sold with the Stadium so only a new owner might merge it back as part of a purchase deal Imo that deal should see them in breach of state aid regulations, if we haven't already ripped those up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts