The AVFC FFP thread

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Matchday and commercial income is going in the right direction but both need to be massively improved to increase the turnover. Hence the stadium redevelopment, which is long overdue. We are miles away from the big 6 on that now.

Yes, our broadcast revenue should rise as we'll finish higher up table this season. Hopefully our commercial revenue increases by 5-10m too. New sponsors should help us on increasing it. 

[fightoffyour]

Amortisation costs should hopefully reduce or not increase directly in line with spending if we're also retaining more of our top talent on extended contacts (e.g. Mings, Luiz),  signing players on free transfers (e.g. Kamara), and/or promoting academy players to the first team (e.g. Ramsey).

[Hank Scorpio]

So the heat people got for saying we can't spend because of FFP is right basically. We have nowhere near enough available to rebuild the team without more sales.

VT accountants apologize!

[Hank Scorpio]

14 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes, our broadcast revenue should rise as we'll finish higher up table this season. Hopefully our commercial revenue increases by 5-10m too. New sponsors should help us on increasing it. 

But at the same time other teams deals are already light years ahead of what we have and will likely attract due to being shite for best part of 10 years.

[The Fun Factory]

15 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes, our broadcast revenue should rise as we'll finish higher up table this season. Hopefully our commercial revenue increases by 5-10m too. New sponsors should help us on increasing it. 

I presume from 2024 the CL rights are going even higher up, which will make it even harder to compete.

[Mark Albrighton]

I understand barely any of this. And to be honest, I’m not overly bothered about learning the details of the ins and outs of it. 

What I find slightly at odds is if spending is restricted more than we’d like, would we have bought Moreno and Duran in January? I know Digne has his critics but I’m not sure how desperate it was for us to bring in a replacement (especially considering Digne still has featured regularly) and Duran is a bit of a long term prospect.

About £30m there. To me it seems a lot of money to spend on players who aren’t necessarily starters if we’re minding the pennies.

[ender4]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

The highlights from accounts for FFP

Income 178.4

Profit on player sales 97.4

Wages 137

Amortisation 85.3 (inc depreciation)

FFP accounts for year (178.4 + 97.4) - (137 + 85.3) = +£53.5m

So we're £44m in sales short of neutral for FFP. (we can run a 100m loss over 3 years in FFP though)

Our revenue needs to improve (hopefully it has last season).

 

so you are actually agreeing with @Czarnikjakeven though you said you disagree?

Basically we are making huge operating losses and are nowhere near break-even for FFP purposes unless we sell the odd player for profit every year.

and you both agree that we need to increase revenue as the top 6 have £200m extra to spend every year as it currently stands.

[ender4]

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I understand barely any of this. And to be honest, I’m not overly bothered about learning the details of the ins and outs of it. 

What I find slightly at odds is if spending is restricted more than we’d like, would we have bought Moreno and Duran in January? I know Digne has his critics but I’m not sure how desperate it was for us to bring in a replacement (especially considering Digne still has featured regularly) and Duran is a bit of a long term prospect.

About £30m there. To me it seems a lot of money to spend on players who aren’t necessarily starters if we’re minding the pennies.

It's not completely restricted, we just need to be clever about it and buy players who will increase in value and don't have huge wages.  Players like Duran and Moreno would fit the profile.

[tomsky_11]

22 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Amortisation costs should hopefully reduce or not increase directly in line with spending if we're also retaining more of our top talent on extended contacts (e.g. Mings, Luiz),  signing players on free transfers (e.g. Kamara), and/or promoting academy players to the first team (e.g. Ramsey).

Per the accounts, expected amortisation for 22/23 on the closing 21/22 balance is £98.2M. Therefore I doubt we will see reduction from this years figure. I assume we'll have sales out bringing this down a little, but then add amortisation of new players, plus possibly some of the £60M of contingent player liabilities being capitalised. Can't see it being much different to the £98M expected - the average variance from the prior year expected figure in the last two years of accounts is +/-4%

[CVByrne]

29 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Amortisation costs should hopefully reduce or not increase directly in line with spending if we're also retaining more of our top talent on extended contacts (e.g. Mings, Luiz),  signing players on free transfers (e.g. Kamara), and/or promoting academy players to the first team (e.g. Ramsey).

Yes we should see drop in some, but we have a full season of Dinge (as opposed to half in 22 accounts), Coutinho and Carlos to add to the Amortisation. Though player sales of Chuk, AEG, Trez, Ings should more than offset any amortisation increase. (the Luiz/Mings and full season of Martinez/Cash new contracts spreading amortisation over longer). We added Moreno and Duran but not huge amortisation.

My gut says £30m goes in under gain on player sales 20m Chuk + £10 from other three. I'd say our wages + amortisation will probably rise about 10m to a 220m total.

Income will rise to 200m based on better league finish and increased commerical revenue. So we'll book a £10m FFP profit maybe. 

This summer will see some good income on player sales in net profit terms (Davis, Hause, Sanson, Traore, Naka) should get us about a 25-30m profit again. 

[Wainy316]

If you can only make a £105m loss over 3 years then why weren't we penalised between 2018-21?  Did Covid rule relaxations save us?

 

[CVByrne]

10 minutes ago, ender4 said:

so you are actually agreeing with @Czarnikjakeven though you said you disagree?

Basically we are making huge operating losses and are nowhere near break-even for FFP purposes unless we sell the odd player for profit every year.

and you both agree that we need to increase revenue as the top 6 have £200m extra to spend every year as it currently stands.

We're moving into a different stage of the club though. We should see a steady amount of income in the profit on players sales annually going forward. This is due to the fact we had to invest heavily in our playing squad in the past seasons and we've amortised down a lot of that investment thus we begin to profit on players when they move on. 

Secondly we have a 44m shortfall in FFP in 2022 due to drop in revenue. We should see that jump 20m+ this season with new sponsors and more broadcast revenue. I think we'll see us FFP flat or small profit or small loss when we factor in the new stream of player sales income

[Mark Albrighton]

10 minutes ago, ender4 said:

It's not completely restricted, we just need to be clever about it and buy players who will increase in value and don't have huge wages.  Players like Duran and Moreno would fit the profile.

I can imagine Duran doing that, I’m less certain about Moreno. Admittedly I don’t know what sort of wages we’d be looking at.

I’m aware that money will be available, and I’ve not been of the opinion it would be circa £150m. To my mind it will be £75m-£100m on 3/4 players. Maybe closer to £75m.

[CVByrne]

50 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

So the heat people got for saying we can't spend because of FFP is right basically. We have nowhere near enough available to rebuild the team without more sales.

VT accountants apologize!

Eh, no 2019 and 2020 were bad accounts for us. 2021 was a bit better but still FFP loss of 15m approx. 2022 is FFP profit about £50m and 2023 will be about 5 to 10m profit.

So we'll be going into the summer with 3 year historic FFP accounts of +£40m which is very healthy indeed. We'll have a loss making year roll off in 2024 and the spending this summer rolling on.

We have lots of headroom for Emery this summer. Lots of it

[CVByrne]

13 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

If you can only make a £105m loss over 3 years then why weren't we penalised between 2018-21?  Did Covid rule relaxations save us?

 

Yes, Covid meant  you could get away with whatever you wanted nearly. Everton took the piss with the flexibility. 

[The Fun Factory]

45 minutes ago, ender4 said:

It's not completely restricted, we just need to be clever about it and buy players who will increase in value and don't have huge wages.  Players like Duran and Moreno would fit the profile.

This makes it even more baffling that we abandoned that policy under Gerrard for a year. I still don't understand why we brought him in unless he said he would continue this policy and then  basically ignored Lange. 

[MrBlack]

1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said:

Matchday and commercial income is going in the right direction but both need to be massively improved to increase the turnover. Hence the stadium redevelopment, which is long overdue. We are miles away from the big 6 on that now.

Probably doesn't help that our owners won't/can't sell match day hospitality packages to people that dont exist, probably aren't even in the country if they did, or wouldn't even attend the game even if they were. Alongside their fraudulent sponsorship deals, you really think Man City aren't falsely inflating their matchday revenue, their shirt sales, or any other stream of income they make. 

The ticket sales that Man City make up, to then support their artificially inflated sponsorship deals, will forever leave us behind their likes.

I imagine Newcastle will shortly be doing the same thing, if they aren't already, assuming City don't have any major punishments from their latest charges 

[CVByrne]

5 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

This makes it even more baffling that we abandoned that policy under Gerrard for a year. I still don't understand why we brought him in unless he said he would continue this policy and then  basically ignored Lange. 

Gerrard had a fair point that the team lacked experienced players. Digne, Coutinho, Carlos, Chambers, Olsen all had CL experience and lots of football at top league level. 

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Probably doesn't help that our owners won't/can't sell match day hospitality packages to people that dont exist, probably aren't even in the country if they did, or wouldn't even attend the game even if they were. Alongside their fraudulent sponsorship deals, you really think Man City aren't falsely inflating their matchday revenue, their shirt sales, or any other stream of income they make. 

The ticket sales that Man City make up, to then support their artificially inflated sponsorship deals, will forever leave us behind their likes.

I imagine Newcastle will shortly be doing the same thing, if they aren't already, assuming City don't have any major punishments from their latest charges 

They can't. PL need to approve their commercial deals. So they are appropriate and reflect market rates. So I assume they need to show the sponsorship offers from non affiliated companies. 

[MrBlack]

4 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

They can't. PL need to approve their commercial deals. So they are appropriate and reflect market rates. So I assume they need to show the sponsorship offers from non affiliated companies. 

I know this... Did you see the PL reject Newcastle's latest inflated sleeve sponsorship deal? Nope, me neither. 

It is a fact they will get deals we can't, and it won't be because of our fan base size or recent achievements, or any reasonable factor. It will be the affiliation their owners have with the companies in question. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by MrBlack