Bazmonkey Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 i cant get my head round this. But are we going to be under investigation or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 6 minutes ago, Bazmonkey said: i cant get my head round this. But are we going to be under investigation or not? Very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 8 minutes ago, Bazmonkey said: i cant get my head round this. But are we going to be under investigation or not? Probably not, but we're not going to be allowed to loan Januzaj. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, fightoffyour said: I've read the post. If it was clear I wouldn't ask would I. How the hell isn’t it clear it has a full set of detailed figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 11 minutes ago, Bazmonkey said: i cant get my head round this. But are we going to be under investigation or not? everyone is always under investigation. You submit your accounts, you say whether you are compliant with PSR, we wait for the premier league to agree/disagree. If youve made a big profit in your accounts, youd expect the same from a psr perspective. If you've lost a lot, expect some scrutiny. Id expect us to be running close, the owners are trying to squeeze every last penny out. If we'd made a big profit, we would probably all be wondering why we hadnt seen that money invested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 5 VT Supporter Share Posted March 5 (edited) 47 minutes ago, paul514 said: How the hell isn’t it clear it has a full set of detailed figures It's not clear because it's not clear, hence why I asked, but either: you are talking about selling a player for £100m and buying 5 x £20m players - it goes without saying that this is affordable in an FFP sesnese or otherwise, but how do £20m players in general (obviously free transfers like Kamara aside) improve our first 11?; or you are talking about selling a player for £100m and buying 5 x £100m players - this is affordable FFP wise (ignoring the £400m excess bankroll required) in the year that you sell the player because the amortisation costs that year would be 5 x £20m, but what happens for the next 4 years after that when you don't have the original player sale? Edited March 5 by fightoffyour 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 10 hours ago, CVByrne said: 2022 2023 2024 Match Day 16.1 21.7 26 Broadcast 123.2 147 175 Commercial 39.1 49 60 Income 178.4 217.7 261 Wages -137 -194.2 -194.2 Other Costs -41.9 -49 -49 Player Amort -82.5 -92.5 -92.5 Depreceiation -3.5 -3.5 0 Non-Recurring income/cost -9.8 -20 0 Gain on player sales 97.4 22 40 Exepenses -177.3 -337.2 -295.7 Operating Profit/Loss 1.1 -119.5 -34.7 Allowable Deductions 22 25 25 PSR Figure 23.1 -94.5 -9.7 So the 2022 figures there are from our accounts. The totals in 2023 figures are correct I've estimated the Match Day and Commerical revenue increases as Broadcast numbers are fairly set as it's PL prize money. That gives the accurate income of 217.7. I've taken the Wages, Amortisation and player sales profits as per 2023 accounts statement. I've made up increases in Other Costs and Non recurring costs to get to the loss figure. The latter in 2022 accounts was Deano sacking and Gerrard hiring. I'm going with near 20m for that in Gerrard sacking and Emery hiring. Our blended accounts for Covid in PSR was -24 so in the 3 years we are at -95m so 10m under the limit. I'm then estimating our income growth for 23/24 based on finishing 4th and going deep in ECL. I'm also growing match day and commercial income too. I think a figure of 260m is realistic. Then as we have not sacked and hired managers this season the Non-recurring costs drop off and we look to have made £40m profit from selling players a jump of 18m from last season. So overall that's a ~ £80m swing from 23 to 24 accounts. So that means we've around £24m space for increased wages/amortisation in 23/24 Am happy with these numbers. I think revenue growth from 218m to 260m is possible if we get 4th and go deep in ECL I need to estimate the amortisation changes and then salary. To get a feel for where we are in 23/24. Inga, Young, Naka all left, Coutinho, Sanson, Dendonker, Traore. New contracts also cut our annual amortisation, like Watkins, Bailey. I'd say we've added like 12m, 12m, 6m, 5m, 5m in terms of additional costs for summer incomings. So like say 40m increased there in Amortsation + Wages. Which means we need to save 15m+ on the group above which is easy enough. I'm satisfied we don't need a sale before end June to get under PSR. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted March 5 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 5 10 hours ago, Frodo said: So does the pausing of the North stand now make sense in the fact that we need gate receipts going forward along with other revenues just to try & compete. The £110 million that it will cost isn't the problem as it doesn't effect ffp but only having 3 stands open & not 4 within a 18 month - to 2 year period would effect our revenue from gat receipts. I think it's worth considering the value of the current North Stand and where our biggest shortfalls in income are. Our matchday income will have gone up in these figures and again in the figures for this season (higher prices, more games) and we're heading in the right direction, albeit miles behind the likes of Spurs who lead the field by a distance. But in the grand scheme of things, the North Stand brings in about £6m a year - or about 2.5% of our income (and falling as our income rises) and it's replacement wouldn't be expected to bring in more than about £15m. Now £6m isn't nothing, but there are other areas where we are so far behind that it's ridiculous and they should be our priority. We make around £14m a year for our three main sponsorship opportunities - our shirt manufacturer, our main shirt sponsor and our sleeve sponsor - almost all of the teams we want to compete with have shirt sponsorships at around £40m and sleeves at £6m+. Spurs make £14m a year from their sleeve alone (and around £85m for the big three sponsorships) We concentrate a lot when we talk about income and revenue on extra pints, quicker service, season ticket prices and so on, and yes, those things make a difference - but the big one for us has to be getting better value for the big three - hopefully Adidas makes a difference and we can renegotiate on our existing partnerships in the summer - but if we're in the Champions league and we're exciting to watch, there's a £25m opportunity right there, right now - that's why we have Heck and why he's given the licence to do the job in whatever the hell way he likes. If we can get £20-30m a season more for those three things, starting this summer, that's more than we'll get from next years season ticket sales. That's our weakest area, that's the opportunity,, that's the difference maker. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 18 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: This is our problem, With FFP or without we are going to be disadvantaged either way. With FFP, we can't financially compete with teams with high revenues ( liverpool, arsenal etc). without ffp, we won't be able to compete with state owned clubs In our present condition you aren't wrong. I see it this way. Without FFP our champions league team gets picked apart like Leicester City without anything we can do about it. Our owners eventually lose interest and down the league we go. With FFP it will take years of commitment by our owners but we can build our revenue base up to the point where we are essentially an equal to the PL top 4/5 in revenue. Spurs tripled their revenue in 9 years. I don't see why we can't do the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 5 Moderator Share Posted March 5 11 hours ago, CVByrne said: 2022 2023 2024 Match Day 16.1 21.7 26 Broadcast 123.2 147 175 Commercial 39.1 49 60 Income 178.4 217.7 261 Thank you for (the whole of) the post that these numbers are from, it's a really good read. I do think though that our matchday revenues will be higher than your 2024 figure - prices are up around 15% across the board, with more hospitality opportunities, and more importantly, we're going to play at least 26 homes games this season compared to 20 in 2022-23. We're going from 824k bums on seats to nearer 1.1 million. I think the matchday revenue will be well in excess of £30m for the current campaign.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Thank you for (the whole of) the post that these numbers are from, it's a really good read. I do think though that our matchday revenues will be higher than your 2024 figure - prices are up around 15% across the board, with more hospitality opportunities, and more importantly, we're going to play at least 26 homes games this season compared to 20 in 2022-23. We're going from 824k bums on seats to nearer 1.1 million. I think the matchday revenue will be well in excess of £30m for the current campaign.. Yeah I was working from a total income for 22/23 which we got from the club statement, then plugging in the prize money for coming 7th. So split it between Match Day and Commercial to get the numbers and then worked from there to 24. When the full accounts are up on companies house we'll get a better idea of the exact breakdowns. I still think revenue growth to 260m for 23/24 is doable. All things considered 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 54 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I think it's worth considering the value of the current North Stand and where our biggest shortfalls in income are. Our matchday income will have gone up in these figures and again in the figures for this season (higher prices, more games) and we're heading in the right direction, albeit miles behind the likes of Spurs who lead the field by a distance. But in the grand scheme of things, the North Stand brings in about £6m a year - or about 2.5% of our income (and falling as our income rises) and it's replacement wouldn't be expected to bring in more than about £15m. Now £6m isn't nothing, but there are other areas where we are so far behind that it's ridiculous and they should be our priority. We make around £14m a year for our three main sponsorship opportunities - our shirt manufacturer, our main shirt sponsor and our sleeve sponsor - almost all of the teams we want to compete with have shirt sponsorships at around £40m and sleeves at £6m+. Spurs make £14m a year from their sleeve alone (and around £85m for the big three sponsorships) We concentrate a lot when we talk about income and revenue on extra pints, quicker service, season ticket prices and so on, and yes, those things make a difference - but the big one for us has to be getting better value for the big three - hopefully Adidas makes a difference and we can renegotiate on our existing partnerships in the summer - but if we're in the Champions league and we're exciting to watch, there's a £25m opportunity right there, right now - that's why we have Heck and why he's given the licence to do the job in whatever the hell way he likes. If we can get £20-30m a season more for those three things, starting this summer, that's more than we'll get from next years season ticket sales. That's our weakest area, that's the opportunity,, that's the difference maker. Great Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: I think it's worth considering the value of the current North Stand and where our biggest shortfalls in income are. Our matchday income will have gone up in these figures and again in the figures for this season (higher prices, more games) and we're heading in the right direction, albeit miles behind the likes of Spurs who lead the field by a distance. But in the grand scheme of things, the North Stand brings in about £6m a year - or about 2.5% of our income (and falling as our income rises) and it's replacement wouldn't be expected to bring in more than about £15m. Now £6m isn't nothing, but there are other areas where we are so far behind that it's ridiculous and they should be our priority. We make around £14m a year for our three main sponsorship opportunities - our shirt manufacturer, our main shirt sponsor and our sleeve sponsor - almost all of the teams we want to compete with have shirt sponsorships at around £40m and sleeves at £6m+. Spurs make £14m a year from their sleeve alone (and around £85m for the big three sponsorships) We concentrate a lot when we talk about income and revenue on extra pints, quicker service, season ticket prices and so on, and yes, those things make a difference - but the big one for us has to be getting better value for the big three - hopefully Adidas makes a difference and we can renegotiate on our existing partnerships in the summer - but if we're in the Champions league and we're exciting to watch, there's a £25m opportunity right there, right now - that's why we have Heck and why he's given the licence to do the job in whatever the hell way he likes. If we can get £20-30m a season more for those three things, starting this summer, that's more than we'll get from next years season ticket sales. That's our weakest area, that's the opportunity,, that's the difference maker. Yes agree BUT we can do the big three opportunities and also do the smaller things. Every £1 million counts and if you can do 50 of these little things at the same time then suddenly that’s an extra £50 million. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Emery has already said with a reassuring smile in his voice that we're going to be making signings in the summer, he said this in the context of explaing that January signings were more project signings, but the summer will be for players to come in and make an immediate impact, he said it in such a way that it made me think that the plans are already well underway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheVilla26 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 I have zero clue on all this FFP crap and accounting etc... Therefore, I propose Villa give me a job of overseeing it all and next year we will post a £500 million profit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 I trust the owners, and hell even Heck, that they know what they are doing. Perhaps I should be more worried but I am halfway through a cheeky little biscuit beer so I am chill on this. We know the system is screwed against anyone breaking the top 6,, but we are going to give it a right good go. If the worst happens we get a fine and some points deduction which we can then appeal against and go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted March 5 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 5 The key over the next three years isn't reducing the wage bill, it's raising the income - as long as we're focusing on that our ambitions remain in place and I think it's pretty clear we're definitely focusing on that. 9 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 17 hours ago, MWARLEY2 said: Exactly. . What they are doing is spending right up to the absolute max level they are allowed to i guess , in order to try and secure future success. The disapointing part though is how much we have lost on paper despite it being for a season where we spent v little on transfers. Shows how difficult it is to generate income I think it shows how bad we have been at generating revenue in the past. Obviously it is easier when you are doing well on the pitch - but I do think that Heck and Atairos will find ways of generating revenue (or more revenue) that we've either not done in the past or even not even considered in the past. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveAV1 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 16 minutes ago, allani said: I think it shows how bad we have been at generating revenue in the past. Obviously it is easier when you are doing well on the pitch - but I do think that Heck and Atairos will find ways of generating revenue (or more revenue) that we've either not done in the past or even not even considered in the past. You’d assume that’s exactly why Heck has been brought in 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 8 hours ago, rodders0223 said: Do you think the owners would be happy losing 100m every other year should FFP be abolished? It depends how much the value of the club was increasing at the same time. They'll be more interested in the overall value of their investment than fluctuations in P&L year or year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts