MrBlack Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 Just now, OutByEaster? said: I suspect the greatest risk might be in changes to the rules. Which is arguably why we should absolutely max out our available expenditure while we can. It seems inevitable the next set of rules will be based on % of income in some way or another, and the quicker we move up the ladder, the quicker that increased income gives us more room for maneuver. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsky_11 Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I suspect the greatest risk might be in changes to the rules. True that's a risk. But not one that would suddenly land without our knowledge. Nor one as I understand it the club as a member of the league wouldn't have a say in. And as the team (and management! I imagine the costs of hiring and firing aren't too helpful last few years) hopefully becomes more settled I'd think we could manage some of the cost side better (eg. fewer transfers in, more extensions to spread amortisation and bring it down in a period) Edited March 9, 2023 by tomsky_11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 8 hours ago, MaVilla said: so what i have got from this thread so far is: We have a fair amount of FFP wriggle room and could feasibly spend a good amount of money this summer. We have no money and are skirting on the edge of FFP, and will not be able to spend much at all this summer. ok, got it Quote me in September. We will spend 100m+. We have the headroom financially to spend far more than that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 1 hour ago, MrBlack said: Which is arguably why we should absolutely max out our available expenditure while we can. It seems inevitable the next set of rules will be based on % of income in some way or another, and the quicker we move up the ladder, the quicker that increased income gives us more room for maneuver. No, we have to keep an eye on the UEFA rules. We need to have maybe a playing squad cost ratio around 90% based off an 8th/9th PL finish. Then if we qualify for Europe the income will put that near the 70% allowed. We flip between these two state based on in and out of Europe. We need to maximise any time in European football on increasing commercial revenue which is less transient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 Posts about Newcastle moved to the Newcastle thread, in other football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Accounts analysed by Swiss ramble with detailed breakdown of our ffp situation https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202122 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsky_11 Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 4 hours ago, Czarnikjak said: Accounts analysed by Swiss ramble with detailed breakdown of our ffp situation https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202122 Only diffences they have to what's been presented here previous are Women's spend (are they estimating this or can this be found somewhere?) and Covid impact for 2022 (was this in the accounts?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 (edited) A few things from the swiss ramble numbers We have to increase our sponsorship and overall commercial levels as we are miles behind. Our sponsorship is less than Brighton and Leceister, and somehow our overall commercial revenue is less than Leeds which I am frankly amazed at. Looking at the data the top 6 have a permanently baked-in advantage in revenue which will basically be impossible to ever get to. But we need to aim to get a lot closer to those figures and be the best of the rest. Our role as a fan seems to get less important by the year, as only 9% of all revenue comes from matchdays. Edited March 15, 2023 by The Fun Factory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 3 hours ago, The Fun Factory said: Our role as a fan seems to get less important by the year, as only 9% of all revenue comes from matchdays. Only because Villa have matchday revenues of £16.1m whilst (for example) Spurs have matchday revenues of £106m and Arsenal £90m. We are expected to improve to £20 million matchday revenue this current season, and can estimate £25-30m after the VP expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 5 hours ago, ender4 said: Only because Villa have matchday revenues of £16.1m whilst (for example) Spurs have matchday revenues of £106m and Arsenal £90m. We are expected to improve to £20 million matchday revenue this current season, and can estimate £25-30m after the VP expansion. Yeah, but that £100m Spurs get is mostly Corporate London boxes...So still not fans, I think the original poster point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHY Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 Just shows how important youth development is. Easily the best way to improve growth in football in general. Can fully understand why they are building an academy closer to the ground, no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkiller1981 Posted April 6, 2023 Share Posted April 6, 2023 Probably me being thick but looking and reading about Everton and Man City’s financial arrangements and it appears to be the case that Man City over inflated some sponsorship or other commercial deal whenever they needed money. I am just trying to work out why legally not morally that is wrong when it comes to FFP. Wasn’t FFP meant to be about clubs being run in a sustained way so they didn’t end up like a Leeds or Portsmouth (I know the real reason is to stop a Leicester winning the league again situation) but if a rich owner was buying sponsorship then that money is a transaction into the club right ? Therefore it’s not a loan and can’t be clawed back if an owner changes their mind. The value of a sponsorship is really not anyone’s business but the club and and person/business sponsoring surely and if they want to spend £100 mill on a deal that would normally only be worth a £1 mill isn’t that there problem. i am sure it’s more complicated but does anyone know the answer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 6, 2023 Share Posted April 6, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, punkiller1981 said: Probably me being thick but looking and reading about Everton and Man City’s financial arrangements and it appears to be the case that Man City over inflated some sponsorship or other commercial deal whenever they needed money. I am just trying to work out why legally not morally that is wrong when it comes to FFP. Wasn’t FFP meant to be about clubs being run in a sustained way so they didn’t end up like a Leeds or Portsmouth (I know the real reason is to stop a Leicester winning the league again situation) but if a rich owner was buying sponsorship then that money is a transaction into the club right ? Therefore it’s not a loan and can’t be clawed back if an owner changes their mind. The value of a sponsorship is really not anyone’s business but the club and and person/business sponsoring surely and if they want to spend £100 mill on a deal that would normally only be worth a £1 mill isn’t that there problem. i am sure it’s more complicated but does anyone know the answer ? It's called "related parties sponsorship" and it's also part of Premier League rules. So legally you're not allowed to over inflate your sponsorship deals. Regarding morality of it, it's not mentioned in the rules so better forget about it. Edited April 6, 2023 by Czarnikjak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted April 6, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted April 6, 2023 Well no, you’re actually not allowed to inflate your sponsorship deals beyond “market value”. This is inherently ambiguous though, and was flouted with massively by Man City (basically just claiming they were commercially on a par with, say, Man Utd - they are now, because that’s what they engineered). What is not ambiguous is that you’re not allowed to get a, for example, £2m sponsorship deal, claim it as a £20m deal, and then get the owner to send that sponsoring company the £18m deficit. This is exactly what Man City did - it’s in the emails they sent. You’re also not allowed to pay someone “only” £100k per week on the book but top it up with a little extra £300k off them. Man City have been doing that too, for 15 years since the club was founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted April 6, 2023 Share Posted April 6, 2023 1 hour ago, punkiller1981 said: Probably me being thick but looking and reading about Everton and Man City’s financial arrangements and it appears to be the case that Man City over inflated some sponsorship or other commercial deal whenever they needed money. I am just trying to work out why legally not morally that is wrong when it comes to FFP. Wasn’t FFP meant to be about clubs being run in a sustained way so they didn’t end up like a Leeds or Portsmouth (I know the real reason is to stop a Leicester winning the league again situation) but if a rich owner was buying sponsorship then that money is a transaction into the club right ? Therefore it’s not a loan and can’t be clawed back if an owner changes their mind. The value of a sponsorship is really not anyone’s business but the club and and person/business sponsoring surely and if they want to spend £100 mill on a deal that would normally only be worth a £1 mill isn’t that there problem. i am sure it’s more complicated but does anyone know the answer ? The concept of FFP is very simple. Clubs should be run as a business that is sustainable without artificial means provided by current owner. So if the owner wants to have affiliated companies sponsor the club with inflated sponsorship deals they are just another form of an owner paying the bills. If an owner runs out of money or decides to stop then the club could go under. Clubs are not owned by their owners, owners are custodians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWARLEY2 Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 On 15/03/2023 at 12:12, The Fun Factory said: A few things from the swiss ramble numbers We have to increase our sponsorship and overall commercial levels as we are miles behind. Our sponsorship is less than Brighton and Leceister, and somehow our overall commercial revenue is less than Leeds which I am frankly amazed at. Looking at the data the top 6 have a permanently baked-in advantage in revenue which will basically be impossible to ever get to. But we need to aim to get a lot closer to those figures and be the best of the rest. Our role as a fan seems to get less important by the year, as only 9% of all revenue comes from matchdays. And that is despite Purlsow being very good commercially. The only way we can make up the gap is the academy becoming a conveyor belt Even if we won the league and champions league we would still only get say 50 max commercial revenue. The money and corporate stuff is all in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 7, 2023 Moderator Share Posted April 7, 2023 please stay on topic. This is not the thread for speculation on various players wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 11, 2023 Share Posted May 11, 2023 On 13/03/2023 at 11:02, Czarnikjak said: Accounts analysed by Swiss ramble with detailed breakdown of our ffp situation https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202122 With 2019 rolling off and 2023 rolling on we'll have more headroom. It will be interesting if we sell anyone before end of June to book profits in this years accounts. I don't think it's needed at all. We'll get over 30m boost this season to our operating income for ending 8th and the new increase in overseas TV revenue. We'll have new Sponsorship deals to kick in from next season. Looks like we've got healthy FFP position for the club and we've some saleable players for additional profit boosts. Exciting times ahead if we invest in the playing squad correctly 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted May 11, 2023 Share Posted May 11, 2023 26 minutes ago, CVByrne said: With 2019 rolling off and 2023 rolling on we'll have more headroom. It will be interesting if we sell anyone before end of June to book profits in this years accounts. I don't think it's needed at all. We'll get over 30m boost this season to our operating income for ending 8th and the new increase in overseas TV revenue. We'll have new Sponsorship deals to kick in from next season. Looks like we've got healthy FFP position for the club and we've some saleable players for additional profit boosts. Exciting times ahead if we invest in the playing squad correctly what date exactly does the 2019 season "disappear" from the 3 year cycle?, and the new 23/24 season come in, for accounting purposes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted May 11, 2023 Share Posted May 11, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, CVByrne said: With 2019 rolling off and 2023 rolling on we'll have more headroom. Would need to estimate it to be sure. Based on latest published accounts for last season, add potential increase in Revenue, take away £100m from JG sale, add any profit on player sales this season (mainly Chuck) and adjust wages/amortisation changes. Anyone up to the task? Back of a napkin calculation tells me we gonna be worse off, but still well within limits. Edited May 11, 2023 by Czarnikjak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts