The AVFC FFP thread

[villa4europe]

thats an excellent explanation as to why FFP is absolute bollocks

mad how much vitriol there was towards the superleague closing the shop when this nonsense has been kicking around for 10 years

the interesting thing in the next couple of years will be the increase in the revenue from player sales, from the players that we dont need any more, not the ones that we're giving away or buying our their contract or losing through gritted teeth, when nakamba goes or engels or el ghazi do we start to make profit on player sales, i think that paired with just general revenue and sponsors will be telling, the shirt sponsor stuff was eye opening

we made less revenue than norwich, thats insane, this "big club" stuff...less money than **** norwich!

 

[pas5898]

I'm not a finance expert. 

But the asset value (players) and increased value of the club would easily offset against what NSWE have spent. 

Should NSWE "do a Lerner", they'd easily make 250m for Grealish, Mcginn, mings, Konsa and Watkins.

I expect us to copy the Leicester model in a few years, whereby we sell one big player each year for an inflated fee and offset against youth and clever acquisition. 

Thats sustainable. 

[fightoffyour]

24 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

I'm not a finance expert. 

But the asset value (players) and increased value of the club would easily offset against what NSWE have spent. 

Should NSWE "do a Lerner", they'd easily make 250m for Grealish, Mcginn, mings, Konsa and Watkins.

I expect us to copy the Leicester model in a few years, whereby we sell one big player each year for an inflated fee and offset against youth and clever acquisition. 

Thats sustainable. 

This. There’s nothing in the accounts yet to reflect the fact that almost if not every player the current owners have bought has at least maintained their value but in many cases seen it increase massively. When we start to sell some of these players, plus we get the fans back in and that deferred income from the delayed finish of last season that missed this year’s accounts, the finances will look a lot healthier.

[sidcow]

Yes, our finances for years have been murdered by big signings and zero sales. 

Add in we've also generally been paying wages way beyond the merits of the players it's been totally dysfunctional. 

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, villa4europe said:

We made less revenue than norwich, thats insane, this "big club" stuff...less money than **** norwich!

We reported less revenue than Norwich. Norwich declared all of their income from the 2019-20 season in their figures, we deferred £30m+ into next year's figures - on a like for like basis we made quite a bit more than them and were more like 11th/12th in that table.

We've actually done an interesting job of pushing a lot of our bad news into one year's accounts - not that I think we're going to suddenly turn a profit next season, but I think the picture in next year's accounts might be much easier on the eye, with losses that are significantly smaller than these.

The really disappointing one for me is how much we get for our shirt sponsorship deal at £6m - West Ham for comparison make £10m - that's the equivalent of them selling an additional 8,000 season tickets. Spurs make £35m a year on their deal, a difference that is more than our entire match day revenues for a whole season - they could play in a park and still make more than a season's worth of a full Villa Park on the value of that deal - it's an area where I really think we can grow.

Similarly, Kappa are paying us £3m a season to supply our kit while Palace get £4m a year from Puma, Everton get £10m a season from Hummel, Newcastle get £6.5m a year from Puma and West Ham get £5m a year from Umbro. Finding a better shirt deal will bring us more income than 8,000 extra seats in the North Stand.

I think we're more than capable of getting an additional £10m a year out of those two deals and if we can keep the most marketable player in the country wearing that kit then there's no reason why it shouldn't be more. Nicola Ibbetson has made huge deals in the past at Chelsea and Manchester United and I look forward to seeing what she can get for us once our current deals expire - she's going to be one of the most important factors in our development over the next three years.

 

[hippo]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

We reported less revenue than Norwich. Norwich declared all of their income from the 2019-20 season in their figures, we deferred £30m+ into next year's figures - on a like for like basis we made quite a bit more than them and were more like 11th/12th in that table.

We've actually done an interesting job of pushing a lot of our bad news into one year's accounts - not that I think we're going to suddenly turn a profit next season, but I think the picture in next year's accounts might be much easier on the eye, with losses that are significantly smaller than these.

The really disappointing one for me is how much we get for our shirt sponsorship deal at £6m - West Ham for comparison make £10m - that's the equivalent of them selling an additional 8,000 season tickets. Spurs make £35m a year on their deal, a difference that is more than our entire match day revenues for a whole season - they could play in a park and still make more than a season's worth of a full Villa Park on the value of that deal - it's an area where I really think we can grow.

Similarly, Kappa are paying us £3m a season to supply our kit while Palace get £4m a year from Puma, Everton get £10m a season from Hummel, Leeds get £6m a year from SBOTOP, Newcastle get £6.5m a year from Puma and West Ham get £5m a year from Umbro. Finding a better shirt deal will bring us more income than 8,000 extra seats in the North Stand.

I think we're more than capable of getting an additional £10m a year out of those two deals and if we can keep the most marketable player in the country wearing that kit then there's no reason why it shouldn't be more. Nicola Ibbotson has made huge deals in the past at Chelsea and Manchester United and I look forward to seeing what she can get for us once our current deals expire - she's going to be one of the most important factors in our development over the next three years.

 

We aren't in London.

We are based in one of the most deprived areas in the midlands.

We are always going to struggle to match London sponsorship.

(Please no"Aston is ripe for development" clichés )

Edited April 27, 2021 by hippo

[OutByEaster?]

12 minutes ago, hippo said:

We aren't in London.

We are based in one of the most deprived areas in the midlands.

We are always going to struggle to match London sponsorship.

(Please no"Aston is ripe for development" clichés )

How would that affect us?

I doubt very much that AIA care that a bloke in front of his TV in Thailand or Texas  knows or doesn't know that the Tottenham High Road is a shithole anymore than Visit Rwanda care that some bloke who bought a shirt in Switzerland understands that there are some lovely little Bistro's in Wood Green.

 

 

 

[sparrow1988]

5 hours ago, villarule123 said:

£455m loss over 10 years. Yikes

That's what you get for buying players with no sell on value and holding on to the few who could have potentially been sold for a profit until their contract was up or until we got relegated.

I think Benteke is the only one where we got his market value in the last 10 years. Delph went for a pittance because his contract was let run to nothing that he had the club over a barrel during the negotiations. I think that these players we have now will, in general, bring in a profit when they are inevitably moved on.

[The Fun Factory]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

We reported less revenue than Norwich. Norwich declared all of their income from the 2019-20 season in their figures, we deferred £30m+ into next year's figures - on a like for like basis we made quite a bit more than them and were more like 11th/12th in that table.

We've actually done an interesting job of pushing a lot of our bad news into one year's accounts - not that I think we're going to suddenly turn a profit next season, but I think the picture in next year's accounts might be much easier on the eye, with losses that are significantly smaller than these.

The really disappointing one for me is how much we get for our shirt sponsorship deal at £6m - West Ham for comparison make £10m - that's the equivalent of them selling an additional 8,000 season tickets. Spurs make £35m a year on their deal, a difference that is more than our entire match day revenues for a whole season - they could play in a park and still make more than a season's worth of a full Villa Park on the value of that deal - it's an area where I really think we can grow.

Similarly, Kappa are paying us £3m a season to supply our kit while Palace get £4m a year from Puma, Everton get £10m a season from Hummel, Newcastle get £6.5m a year from Puma and West Ham get £5m a year from Umbro. Finding a better shirt deal will bring us more income than 8,000 extra seats in the North Stand.

I think we're more than capable of getting an additional £10m a year out of those two deals and if we can keep the most marketable player in the country wearing that kit then there's no reason why it shouldn't be more. Nicola Ibbetson has made huge deals in the past at Chelsea and Manchester United and I look forward to seeing what she can get for us once our current deals expire - she's going to be one of the most important factors in our development over the next three years.

 

That's sobering and also a bit depressing. What are the equivalent numbers for Wolves and Leicester, who are midland based teams?

We are still playing catch up after the decline of the Lerner years and the wilderness period of the championship.

I hope this season has improved our value as a club for potential kit suppliers and sponsors.

Despite our best efforts we are still the best supported club north of London until you get to the north west.  I know football is a global market (even more so after last week) but that should always be a intrinsic advantage for us.

In terms of accounts when the last time we actually reported a profit? Under Ellis?

[villa4europe]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

How would that affect us?

I doubt very much that AIA care that a bloke in front of his TV in Thailand or Texas  knows or doesn't know that the Tottenham High Road is a shithole anymore than Visit Rwanda care that some bloke who bought a shirt in Switzerland understands that there are some lovely little Bistro's in Wood Green.

Yeah we can't compete with corporate or match day prices but the price of the sponsors, kit manufacturer and the partners the location shouldn't factor in to it that much, not even the partners are local to us beyond the uni and cadburys who partner everyone now

Spurs are maybe a bad example because they have better brand exposure but Palace having higher sponsorship deals than us? Shows what the championship does to you, its not just the TV money it's the actual being on TV 

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

That's sobering and also a bit depressing. What are the equivalent numbers for Wolves and Leicester, who are midland based teams?

We are still playing catch up after the decline of the Lerner years and the wilderness period of the championship.

I hope this season has improved our value as a club for potential kit suppliers and sponsors.

Despite our best efforts we are still the best supported club north of London until you get to the north west.  I know football is a global market (even more so after last week) but that should always be a intrinsic advantage for us.

In terms of accounts when the last time we actually reported a profit? Under Ellis?

I'm sure when deloitte did the pre FFP premier league study we were the club that got the most positive review from them, maybe even the only club operating in the blqcl or something daft along with utd being clever with their debt, and that was with acorns as the sponsor 

Amazing how we were the ones doing ok and the introduction of the rules completely flipped it on its head, Lerner had a wobbler and we royally **** it up 

[hippo]

34 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

How would that affect us?

I doubt very much that AIA care that a bloke in front of his TV in Thailand or Texas  knows or doesn't know that the Tottenham High Road is a shithole anymore than Visit Rwanda care that some bloke who bought a shirt in Switzerland understands that there are some lovely little Bistro's in Wood Green.

 

 

 

Doesn't really matter. London clubs get bigger sponsorship deals - period.

[OutByEaster?]

7 minutes ago, hippo said:

Doesn't really matter. London clubs get bigger sponsorship deals - period.

That's not actually true though is it?

 

[The Fun Factory]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

That's not actually true though is it?

 

Outside of Citeh,  Liverpool and Man U, its probably fairly true. It is a inbuilt advantage sadly.

[paul514]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

We reported less revenue than Norwich. Norwich declared all of their income from the 2019-20 season in their figures, we deferred £30m+ into next year's figures - on a like for like basis we made quite a bit more than them and were more like 11th/12th in that table.

We've actually done an interesting job of pushing a lot of our bad news into one year's accounts - not that I think we're going to suddenly turn a profit next season, but I think the picture in next year's accounts might be much easier on the eye, with losses that are significantly smaller than these.

The really disappointing one for me is how much we get for our shirt sponsorship deal at £6m - West Ham for comparison make £10m - that's the equivalent of them selling an additional 8,000 season tickets. Spurs make £35m a year on their deal, a difference that is more than our entire match day revenues for a whole season - they could play in a park and still make more than a season's worth of a full Villa Park on the value of that deal - it's an area where I really think we can grow.

Similarly, Kappa are paying us £3m a season to supply our kit while Palace get £4m a year from Puma, Everton get £10m a season from Hummel, Newcastle get £6.5m a year from Puma and West Ham get £5m a year from Umbro. Finding a better shirt deal will bring us more income than 8,000 extra seats in the North Stand.

I think we're more than capable of getting an additional £10m a year out of those two deals and if we can keep the most marketable player in the country wearing that kit then there's no reason why it shouldn't be more. Nicola Ibbetson has made huge deals in the past at Chelsea and Manchester United and I look forward to seeing what she can get for us once our current deals expire - she's going to be one of the most important factors in our development over the next three years.

 

I'd still develop the North Stand if only for marketing purposes for the club, you are right on the sponsor comments.

[paul514]

12 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Outside of Citeh,  Liverpool and Man U, its probably fairly true. It is a inbuilt advantage sadly.

outside of those clubs outside of london..... so basically the geography isn't what is setting the price.

[OutByEaster?]

19 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Outside of Citeh,  Liverpool and Man U, its probably fairly true. It is a inbuilt advantage sadly.

It's not true outside of the top six either.

If we take the combined money form the three main sponsorships; kit manufacturer, shirt sponsorship and sleeve sponsor.

The three London clubs:

• Crystal Palace - £11.5m per year.
• Fulham - approx £5.5m per year
• West Ham - £16m per year

There Northern clubs of similar scales:

• Wolves - £12.5m per year
• West Brom - approx £5.5m per year
• Everton - £20m per year

There's really no correlation between geography and these deals - it's only about exposure and success.

To a good extent, these companies aren't marketing to the UK market anyway, they're looking for the global exposure a Premier League team brings.

London clubs can have an advantage in match day revenues because they can charge higher prices, and they can use the attraction of London to bring in players that might not otherwise consider them, but in terms of their major sponsorships, it's largely immaterial.

 

[thabucks]

We should approach The North Face to sponsor the new North Stand - just imagine it “ Villa attacking the north face north stand “ .... the new stand could and should incorporate  a climbing wall/centre for example ... We need to close the financial gap as quickly as possible and will need to be creative 

[The Fun Factory]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's not true outside of the top six either.

If we take he combined money form the three main sponsorships; kit manufacturer, shirt sponsorship and sleeve sponsor.

The three London clubs:

• Crystal Palace - £11.5m per year.
• Fulham - approx £5.5m per year
• West Ham - £16m per year

There Northern clubs of similar scales:

• Wolves - £12.5m per year
• West Brom - approx £5.5m per year
• Everton - £20m per year

There's really no correlation between geography and these deals - it's only about exposure and success.

To a good extent, these companies aren't marketing to the UK market anyway, they're looking for the global exposure a Premier League team brings.

 

Ok I take that back.But you  can charge more for tickets. But that is not such an advantage given the relative amount that is it  to the overall football income now.

Edited April 27, 2021 by The Fun Factory

[OutByEaster?]

One of our biggest problems is the value of the Kappa deal - no slight on Kappa here, but the deal was made with a Championship club and I think the value of it reflects that.