Increasing Club Revenue

[MrBlack]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

Yesterday a new temp ruling was introduced to stop sponsorships from businesses which have links to club owners. It is in place for 1 month with a view to putting a permanent deal in place following that. 18 PL clubs voted for this, Man City abstained and Newcastle voted against. Quelle suprise!

It's very much another FFP (keep the status quo) style rule. Let the clubs at the top abuse it, then block it as a route to the top once they've established themselves using that model and no longer need it.

Can't see it passing as a long term rule change, legally, anyway.

[Peter Griffin]

4 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

It's very much another FFP (keep the status quo) style rule. Let the clubs at the top abuse it, then block it as a route to the top once they've established themselves using that model and no longer need it.

Can't see it passing as a long term rule change, legally, anyway.

FFP and P&S  are not about legality. The PL is not an open competition, there are constraints which do not apply to other business. If the clubs were legally able to prevent sponsorship above market rate then they would be able to legally prevent any of the FFP / P&S restrictions. But clubs sign up to the competition rules if they want to participate. 

[Peter Griffin]

38 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

It's very much another FFP (keep the status quo) style rule. Let the clubs at the top abuse it, then block it as a route to the top once they've established themselves using that model and no longer need it.

 

It is not the clubs at the top that control this. Each of the 20 clubs in the PL has an equal vote which means that clubs at the top do not have the power to allow it for some and then turn it off. 18 clubs voted against it yesterday, not 6. 

[MrBlack]

44 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It is not the clubs at the top that control this. Each of the 20 clubs in the PL has an equal vote which means that clubs at the top do not have the power to allow it for some and then turn it off. 18 clubs voted against it yesterday, not 6. 

I'm aware of that. But it's still effectively a means to block competition, just like FFP. Of course 18 clubs voted against it. The ones outside the top don't want to see anyone else get an advantage they can't have either. City abstained because they want to continue with their dubious sponsorship deals as they have the capital to compete with Newcastle. Competing against one is better than what they have to compete against currently, win win for them.

A market rate sponsorship deal from the owners company is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the owner. Trying to ban them because the PL dropped a bollock by allowing the ownership to pass is a pathetic move.  Change the rules of a competition to target a "new" player, the same week they signed up to it, really classy. Just refuse them entry in the first place. Total shambles.

 

Edit: on topic,  we have a real challenge to increase our revenue,  but moves like this will hinder us as much as help us I think, relative to our current position in the league.

Edited October 19, 2021 by MrBlack

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

FFP and P&S  are not about legality.

Man City's legal team say hi.

They've spent two years overturning the FFP ban that was imposed on them by UEFA and are still in a protracted legal battle with the Premier league on FFP punishments.

This isn't an NFL style structure where the league is the company and can impose company rules on the teams without regard to wider legal rulings - this is twenty individual companies that agree to compete against each other - each of those companies has full recourse to legal proceedings if they feel that labour or competition laws are being broken. The Premier league can impose rules, but those rules are subject to challenge in a court by any company that feels they have a case.

A body that restricts a company's ability to produce profit is on very rocky ground in our society.

 

[Peter Griffin]

25 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

A market rate sponsorship deal from the owners company is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the owner. Trying to ban them because the PL dropped a bollock by allowing the ownership to pass is a pathetic move.

I somewhat agree with that. If it is mutually beneficial for both companies then it should be allowed at market rate. But is a company sponsors a football club and will see no material benefit then it should not be allowed. There needs to be something to ensure it is appropriate sponsorship.

[Tomaszk]

10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Man City's legal team say hi.

They've spent two years overturning the FFP ban that was imposed on them by UEFA and are still in a protracted legal battle with the Premier league on FFP punishments.

This isn't an NFL style structure where the league is the company and can impose company rules on the teams without regard to wider legal rulings - this is twenty individual companies that agree to compete against each other - each of those companies has full recourse to legal proceedings if they feel that labour or competition laws are being broken. The Premier league can impose rules, but those rules are subject to challenge in a court by any company that feels they have a case.

A body that restricts a company's ability to produce profit is on very rocky ground in our society.

 

Yep, kicking them all out when the superleague happened was the only thing that could possibly have stopped it.

Now it's inevitable.

They'll be smarter this time and get their own fans on side and it'll go through.

[Peter Griffin]

12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Man City's legal team say hi.

They've spent two years overturning the FFP ban that was imposed on them by UEFA and are still in a protracted legal battle with the Premier league on FFP punishments.

This isn't an NFL style structure where the league is the company and can impose company rules on the teams without regard to wider legal rulings - this is twenty individual companies that agree to compete against each other - each of those companies has full recourse to legal proceedings if they feel that labour or competition laws are being broken. The Premier league can impose rules, but those rules are subject to challenge in a court by any company that feels they have a case.

A body that restricts a company's ability to produce profit is on very rocky ground in our society.

 

Man City are not trying to say the rules are illegal. They are legally challenging and saying they did not breach the rules but they are accepting the rules. 

[thabucks]

Hate saying this but how long can they and should they ignore naming rights for the stadium ? Villa Park position near the motorway would add a lot of exposure to a brand… Would always call it Villa Park so for the right amount and sponsor I personally wouldn’t care too much. 

[maqroll]

3 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Hate saying this but how long can they and should they ignore naming rights for the stadium ? Villa Park position near the motorway would add a lot of exposure to a brand… Would always call it Villa Park so for the right amount and sponsor I personally wouldn’t care too much. 

I'm a big proponent of keeping traditional ground names. Yes, naming your ground NRGnet.com Stadium or whatever puts cash in the coffers, but at what cost? IMO, you risk damaging the brand and mystique of the club when you jettison the old name for some ridiculous corporate wank name. Keep the name Villa Park and get creative with other angles.

[maqroll]

The only way I'd go along with a new name is if we built an entirely new stadium. 

[sne]

9 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Hate saying this but how long can they and should they ignore naming rights for the stadium ? Villa Park position near the motorway would add a lot of exposure to a brand… Would always call it Villa Park so for the right amount and sponsor I personally wouldn’t care too much. 

I'll go one step further and say that if we aim to really increase our income or at least match day income we'll sooner or later need a new modern stadium.

[villa4europe]

23 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Hate saying this but how long can they and should they ignore naming rights for the stadium ? Villa Park position near the motorway would add a lot of exposure to a brand… Would always call it Villa Park so for the right amount and sponsor I personally wouldn’t care too much. 

Is the right answer 

I honestly wouldn't care as long as its not a betting company, it will always be Villa Park 

[Peter Griffin]

1 hour ago, thabucks said:

Hate saying this but how long can they and should they ignore naming rights for the stadium ? Villa Park position near the motorway would add a lot of exposure to a brand… Would always call it Villa Park so for the right amount and sponsor I personally wouldn’t care too much. 

I would too but that would only apply to the generation that grew up with it at Villa Park. I still refer to Whitehart Lane, Highbury and St Mary's etc and I always will, even though WHL and Highbury are physically different stadiums at a different location. However, young supporters will no doubt call it The Emirates

[paul514]

9 hours ago, MrBlack said:

I'm aware of that. But it's still effectively a means to block competition, just like FFP. Of course 18 clubs voted against it. The ones outside the top don't want to see anyone else get an advantage they can't have either. City abstained because they want to continue with their dubious sponsorship deals as they have the capital to compete with Newcastle. Competing against one is better than what they have to compete against currently, win win for them.

A market rate sponsorship deal from the owners company is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the owner. Trying to ban them because the PL dropped a bollock by allowing the ownership to pass is a pathetic move.  Change the rules of a competition to target a "new" player, the same week they signed up to it, really classy. Just refuse them entry in the first place. Total shambles.

 

Edit: on topic,  we have a real challenge to increase our revenue,  but moves like this will hinder us as much as help us I think, relative to our current position in the league.

When it comes to FFP its all bollocks.

Whoever owns a club should be able to spend their money how they like.

I feel there should be some sort of earning to wage ratio as that is what kills a club if the owner stops wanting to fund the club.

[QldVilla]

10 hours ago, Peter Griffin said:

Man City are not trying to say the rules are illegal. They are legally challenging and saying they did not breach the rules but they are accepting the rules. 

You can’t say they are accepting of the rules when they are under investigation for evidence of alleged increased sponsorship money through invoicing and hiding owner investment in sponsorship fees.

They have dragged it out with the PL for the past two years and shown complete contempt for PL rules.

[Hornso]

5 hours ago, thabucks said:

Hate saying this but how long can they and should they ignore naming rights for the stadium ? Villa Park position near the motorway would add a lot of exposure to a brand… Would always call it Villa Park so for the right amount and sponsor I personally wouldn’t care too much. 

I think it is only a matter of time. 

My local Australian Rules Football team play at a ground called Kardinia Park. When the club was in dire financial circumstances they sold the naming rights to Shell and it become Shell Stadium. Over the past 20 years it has been Shell Stadium, Baytec Stadium, Skilled Stadium, Simonds Stadium & most recently GMHBA Stadium. It's basically just the name the media use and it has a few signs around the ground, to fans it will always be Kardinia Park or KP. I'm sure Villa Park will be the same. 

It's disappointing, but like everything, you get over it and move on with life especially if the club put it to get use. In this case it was a small thing, but it helped keep the club alive. Rather keep the club than the venue name ultimately. In Villa's case it could be a small thing that helps us push up the table.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Hornso

[blandy]

10 hours ago, QldVilla said:

You can’t say they are accepting of the rules when they are under investigation for evidence of alleged increased sponsorship money through invoicing and hiding owner investment in sponsorship fees.

They have dragged it out with the PL for the past two years and shown complete contempt for PL rules.

The point is that they are not claiming the rules are illegitimate, or invalid. They claim that they didn't breach the rules, whereas the authorities claim they did breach the rules. But they are not disputing the rules have legitimacy and should be abided by.

From the outside, the appearance to me is that they may well have breached them and may well have done so knowingly and deliberately on order to "catch up" with the financial clout of other (then) more established top level clubs. But the courts will decide and City have very good and very expensive lawyers.

Edit - and to stay on topic, increasing commercial revenue via sponsorship or naming rights and so on - it needs to be done at fair market rates and this is the thing that clubs like Villa basically have to abide by, whereas hypothetically, clubs like Newcastle and PSG and Man City which are essentially owned by states could abuse that situation via the huge resources of those states, further slanting the playing field.

[thabucks]

Obvious name which fits perfectly for a stadium sponsor is Wes Eden’s Fortress Fund - Fortress Villa Park … Then get TNF to sponsor the north stand - The North Face Stand … 

Looking at the value of Arsenals agreement with Emirates which works out to be £15mill+ per annum. If we could sign a long term deal with the right partner, then surely Villa Park should be worth at least £7.5+ mill per season - would it worth selling our soul for half a Matty Cash ? 

Edited October 20, 2021 by thabucks

[Follyfoot]

16 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Obvious name which fits perfectly for a stadium sponsor is Wes Eden’s Fortress Fund - Fortress Villa Park … Then get TNF to sponsor the north stand - The North Face Stand … 

Looking at the value of Arsenals agreement with Emirates which works out to be £15mill+ per annum. If we could sign a long term deal with the right partner, then surely Villa Park should be worth at least £7.5+ mill per season - would it worth selling our soul for half a Matty Cash ? 

which half?