Increasing Club Revenue

[pas5898]

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

NSWE don't have to go nuclear to hit those numbers, our current spend rate is well on target to be in excess of 1 Billion in 10 years.

Agreed - But I see recent spend as us catching up, and now the in-balance is now being addressed and moving towards a sustainable model (which Purslow has always stated).

Net 0 spend this summer. Ramsey has saved us 30million on a midfielder, Bidace will probably save us 20-30 million  in a winger.

El ghazi, Trez, Wesley, Gilbert and Davis will probably move on, allowing us to buy another 2 quality players for a net spend of 40-50 million. The master plan is moving into place.

 

We also have big sellable assets which may force a move in the next few years for >£60million which allow quality reinforcements for a lower net spend. 

[QldVilla]

40 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

It would be wrong to divide the money evenly and it would also lessen the value of the PL. The PL would be a much less attractive advertising proposition if it did not have elite teams. Also, the better teams deserve more money as they are winning more. There is no way Burnley should be earning the same amount of money as Liverpool as Liverpool provide a better product and Liverpool help to increase the amount the TV rights are sold for much more than Burnley do. It is a competitive sport and those that compete better will correctly get more of a reward

I don’t follow this logic at all.

Elite teams? Football has always been cyclic, teams rise and fall, some more regularly than others and is why the Premier League has been popular, not the so called elite teams. Man City are only where they are because of money, Chelsea the same. Even then with all the money they spend, if they dont have a top manager they struggle to win trophies.

Arsenal, Spurs have gone backwards through poor recruitment and average manager appointments. Subsequently they are no longer Top 4 teams. What will happen to Liverpool when Klopp leaves, Abromovich finally gets bored or Guardiola leaves City? History shows us that they will unlikely be as successful which leaves it open for teams ready to step into their positions.

The dog is supposed to wag the tail not the other way around. The best competitions are ones where more teams have the chance to win the competition, so the need should be to ensure revenue is dispersed evenly, except on prize money. The more successful clubs already receive more money through sponsorship.

Leceister was one of the biggest sporting stories in the past decade, it attracted world wide interest from non sporting people and people who don’t follow football. If this happened more often it would be far better for the PL and English football in general.

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

It would be wrong to divide the money evenly and it would also lessen the value of the PL. The PL would be a much less attractive advertising proposition if it did not have elite teams. Also, the better teams deserve more money as they are winning more. There is no way Burnley should be earning the same amount of money as Liverpool as Liverpool provide a better product and Liverpool help to increase the amount the TV rights are sold for much more than Burnley do. It is a competitive sport and those that compete better will correctly get more of a reward

agree that they should split the prize money according to where you finish, its not the £1.5m per place or whatever it is that is generating the disparity in the PL

what i do really disagree with in the PL with the TV is the appearance fee which about £1m i think, each team then has the minimum appearance thing in the contract which is around 8 games, in theory Norwich are on TV 8 times a year and get £8m, Liverpool and utd are on 25 times so get £25m...thats taking the piss, they're openly keeping the teams they deem to big bigger by giving them more money

of course the real answer is scrap FFP so it becomes irrelevant but they dont want that either 

[Czarnikjak]

1 hour ago, pas5898 said:

Agreed - But I see recent spend as us catching up, and now the in-balance is now being addressed and moving towards a sustainable model (which Purslow has always stated).

Net 0 spend this summer. Ramsey has saved us 30million on a midfielder, Bidace will probably save us 20-30 million  in a winger.

El ghazi, Trez, Wesley, Gilbert and Davis will probably move on, allowing us to buy another 2 quality players for a net spend of 40-50 million. The master plan is moving into place.

 

We also have big sellable assets which may force a move in the next few years for >£60million which allow quality reinforcements for a lower net spend. 

I second that. Looks like NSWE are done spending their own money at the club and expect it to be sustainable from now on, which both fair and sensible.

I would expect any future transfers to be funded by money generated by the club itself, both  from commercial/broadcast revenue and player sales. Aka what Leicester have been doing successfuly for last few years.

[Don_Simon]

12 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

I second that. Looks like NSWE are done spending their own money at the club and expect it to be sustainable from now on, which both fair and sensible.

I would expect any future transfers to be funded by money generated by the club itself, both  from commercial/broadcast revenue and player sales. Aka what Leicester have been doing successfuly for last few years.

There is no way we are done we spending outside of the revenue we bring in. Have you seen the differences in revenue between us and the clubs we think we are rivals with?

In 19/20 this was the revenues of a selection of Premier League clubs...

Utd: 651 million. 

Tottenham: 500 million. 

Everton: 238 million.

Leicester: 192 million. 

Sheff Utd: 184 million. 

Burnley: 173 million. 

 

 

 

 

 

Aston Villa: 141 million. 

The gap may have closed last season, but we are not even close to being sustainable and still closing the gap with those around us. Never mind those light years ahead. We're probably at this stage Randy got bored, nervous etc. I hope NSWE don't do the same. 

[Peter Griffin]

1 hour ago, pas5898 said:

Agreed - But I see recent spend as us catching up, and now the in-balance is now being addressed and moving towards a sustainable model (which Purslow has always stated).

Net 0 spend this summer. Ramsey has saved us 30million on a midfielder, Bidace will probably save us 20-30 million  in a winger.

El ghazi, Trez, Wesley, Gilbert and Davis will probably move on, allowing us to buy another 2 quality players for a net spend of 40-50 million. The master plan is moving into place.

 

We also have big sellable assets which may force a move in the next few years for >£60million which allow quality reinforcements for a lower net spend. 

Yes, the strategy appears to be coming to fruition. It is great as a fan to watch it unfold. Everything about Villa is positive which is a big change on what we have lived through over the last decade

[Peter Griffin]

1 hour ago, QldVilla said:

I don’t follow this logic at all.

Elite teams? Football has always been cyclic, teams rise and fall, some more regularly than others and is why the Premier League has been popular, not the so called elite teams. Man City are only where they are because of money, Chelsea the same. Even then with all the money they spend, if they dont have a top manager they struggle to win trophies.

Arsenal, Spurs have gone backwards through poor recruitment and average manager appointments. Subsequently they are no longer Top 4 teams. What will happen to Liverpool when Klopp leaves, Abromovich finally gets bored or Guardiola leaves City? History shows us that they will unlikely be as successful which leaves it open for teams ready to step into their positions.

The dog is supposed to wag the tail not the other way around. The best competitions are ones where more teams have the chance to win the competition, so the need should be to ensure revenue is dispersed evenly, except on prize money. The more successful clubs already receive more money through sponsorship.

Leceister was one of the biggest sporting stories in the past decade, it attracted world wide interest from non sporting people and people who don’t follow football. If this happened more often it would be far better for the PL and English football in general.

I am not sure you are reading my comment correctly. I am saying that the PL needs elite teams, it doesn't matter who these teams are and if you read my other comments I am not a subscriber to the top 4/6 being a closed shop. It is very much open and we can join it. But the point I made was that the value of broadcast rights is increased with elite teams in the league.

[Peter Griffin]

26 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

agree that they should split the prize money according to where you finish, its not the £1.5m per place or whatever it is that is generating the disparity in the PL

what i do really disagree with in the PL with the TV is the appearance fee which about £1m i think, each team then has the minimum appearance thing in the contract which is around 8 games, in theory Norwich are on TV 8 times a year and get £8m, Liverpool and utd are on 25 times so get £25m...thats taking the piss, they're openly keeping the teams they deem to big bigger by giving them more money

of course the real answer is scrap FFP so it becomes irrelevant but they dont want that either 

The games that they broadcast are the ones that will have the biggest audience and thus the ones that can charge the highest advertising fee during half time. I am sure Sky earn a hell of a lot more money by selling ads during a Man Utd v Man City games than they would Burnley v Brighton. That's why the big teams are on TV more often. Also, the big teams are aware that they bring in the big money hence they understandably want a bigger slice of the pie. 

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

The games that they broadcast are the ones that will have the biggest audience and thus the ones that can charge the highest advertising fee during half time. I am sure Sky earn a hell of a lot more money by selling ads during a Man Utd v Man City games than they would Burnley v Brighton. That's why the big teams are on TV more often. Also, the big teams are aware that they bring in the big money hence they understandably want a bigger slice of the pie. 

i disagree, that money should be shared equally

sky can use that to tell you who are a big team, spurs for example, they get the push,  sky decide to stick them on 20 times a year and everton or villa 10 and spurs rake in the appearance fees and their own increase in sponsorship

the tail can wag the dog

dont compare burnley with man utd, compare spurs and arsenal with leicester, everton, wolves, villa etc and then see how the disparity is generated based on a media agenda, it shouldnt be allowed - or again like i said what really shouldnt be allowed is a system where you can only spend what you earn is a system where some teams are paid more than others

[Czarnikjak]

32 minutes ago, Don_Simon said:

There is no way we are done we spending outside of the revenue we bring in. Have you seen the differences in revenue between us and the clubs we think we are rivals with?

In 19/20 this was the revenues of a selection of Premier League clubs...

Utd: 651 million. 

Tottenham: 500 million. 

Everton: 238 million.

Leicester: 192 million. 

Sheff Utd: 184 million. 

Burnley: 173 million. 

 

 

 

 

 

Aston Villa: 141 million. 

The gap may have closed last season, but we are not even close to being sustainable and still closing the gap with those around us. Never mind those light years ahead. We're probably at this stage Randy got bored, nervous etc. I hope NSWE don't do the same. 

Revenue we bring in plus proceeds from player sales. Our revenue this season should be around £175-180m, not far off the likes of West ham, Everton and Leicester. 

Leicester showed it's possible to compete for European places and be sustainable.

Looking at the developments of last couple of months it looks like NSWE are done injecting more of their own cash and we switching to self sustainable model. 

You might not be aware, but NSWE not injected any more cash this season and club taken a loan from Barclays instead to help with cashflow.

[Peter Griffin]

44 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

i disagree, that money should be shared equally

sky can use that to tell you who are a big team, spurs for example, they get the push,  sky decide to stick them on 20 times a year and everton or villa 10 and spurs rake in the appearance fees and their own increase in sponsorship

the tail can wag the dog

dont compare burnley with man utd, compare spurs and arsenal with leicester, everton, wolves, villa etc and then see how the disparity is generated based on a media agenda, it shouldnt be allowed - or again like i said what really shouldnt be allowed is a system where you can only spend what you earn is a system where some teams are paid more than others

Of course the money should be shared unevenly. Suggesting it is shared evening is like saying the winner of Wimbledon should receive the same amount of money at a semi finalist or a quarter finalist etc.

As regards the number of time on TV, the last few years don't really count as all games were on TV but I didn't a quick google and found this for the '16/'17 season 

Quote

How many times has your team been on TV this season? Breakdown of live Premier League matches

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/how-many-times-your-team-10439021

Arsenal - 25
Bournemouth - 13
Burnley - 10
Chelsea - 28
Palace - 14
Everton - 18
Hull - 8
Leicester - 16
Liverpool - 29
City - 28
United - 28
Boro - 13
Southampton - 15
Stoke - 9
Sunderland - 8
Swansea - 10
Spurs - 25
Watford - 13
WBA - 11
West Ham - 15

So 5 big teams are all in the 20s (including Spurs) and the majority of the rest were in the teens with Sunderland, Stoke and Hull on single figures. To me that is about right. I like watching football and if Villa are not playing I would much prefer to watch the teams that Sky had on TV more than the teams which were broadcast less. It is driven by advertising value as more people wan to watch the bigger teams

[Peter Griffin]

38 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Looking at the developments of last couple of months it looks like NSWE are done injecting more of their own cash and we switching to self sustainable model. 

You might not be aware, but NSWE not injected any more cash this season and club taken a loan from Barclays instead to help with cashflow.

I am not sure that can be deduced as a result of what happened this year. There was no requirement for NSWE to inject funds as we received a large payment from the sale of Jack. Also, it wasn't quite a loan that they got from Barclay's, it was an overdraft facility and there is nothing to suggest that we have even used this facility. It is prudent business practice to have such a facility in place.

[Czarnikjak]

9 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I am not sure that can be deduced as a result of what happened this year. There was no requirement for NSWE to inject funds as we received a large payment from the sale of Jack. Also, it wasn't quite a loan that they got from Barclay's, it was an overdraft facility and there is nothing to suggest that we have even used this facility. It is prudent business practice to have such a facility in place.

We cannot be certain, but it's a strong hint in my mind:

Overdraft/Loan instead of cash injection together with Purslows publicly stated objective of being self sustainable. 

Personally I would be very happy if we don't take a dollar more from NSWE and are run in sustainable manner from now on. Even if it means less expensive signings in the future and more reliance on academy.

[villa4europe]

5 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

Of course the money should be shared unevenly. Suggesting it is shared evening is like saying the winner of Wimbledon should receive the same amount of money at a semi finalist or a quarter finalist etc.

As regards the number of time on TV, the last few years don't really count as all games were on TV but I didn't a quick google and found this for the '16/'17 season 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/how-many-times-your-team-10439021

Arsenal - 25
Bournemouth - 13
Burnley - 10
Chelsea - 28
Palace - 14
Everton - 18
Hull - 8
Leicester - 16
Liverpool - 29
City - 28
United - 28
Boro - 13
Southampton - 15
Stoke - 9
Sunderland - 8
Swansea - 10
Spurs - 25
Watford - 13
WBA - 11
West Ham - 15

So 5 big teams are all in the 20s (including Spurs) and the majority of the rest were in the teens with Sunderland, Stoke and Hull on single figures. To me that is about right. I like watching football and if Villa are not playing I would much prefer to watch the teams that Sky had on TV more than the teams which were broadcast less. It is driven by advertising value as more people wan to watch the bigger teams

i never said prize money

your wimbledon analogy would be like paying serena williams more money than raducanu because more of william's games are shown on TV

what you are saying with those TV appearance figures is that liverpool were on TV 21 times more than hull, so Liverpool were paid circa £20-30m more than hull in TV money, not prize money, TV appearance money, same with stoke, they could buy shaqiri with the TV appearance money

take the 19/20 season

liverpool - 

Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £31m
Merit payment: £35.5m
Overseas TV income: £71.3m
Commercial revenue: £5m

Aston Villa - 

Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £13.4m
Merit payment: £7.1m
Overseas TV income: £48.8m
Commercial revenue: £5m

The "merit payment" is prize money, the "overseas TV income" is also on a sliding scale based on league position - liverpool were paid £51m more than us based on their league position

The "facility fee" is based on how many times you are on TV - Liverpool were paid £18m more than us because Sky put them on TV more than they do us - that is what i think is bullshit

Newcastle who finished 12th received more money than the teams in 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th and 7th

and again, like i keep saying, this is all bullshit because of FFP, there is a system where TV comapnies can pay some clubs more than others regardless of performance, they can keep big clubs big

 

 

[HKP90]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

i never said prize money

your wimbledon analogy would be like paying serena williams more money than raducanu because more of william's games are shown on TV

what you are saying with those TV appearance figures is that liverpool were on TV 21 times more than hull, so Liverpool were paid circa £20-30m more than hull in TV money, not prize money, TV appearance money, same with stoke, they could buy shaqiri with the TV appearance money

take the 19/20 season

liverpool - 

Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £31m
Merit payment: £35.5m
Overseas TV income: £71.3m
Commercial revenue: £5m

Aston Villa - 

Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £13.4m
Merit payment: £7.1m
Overseas TV income: £48.8m
Commercial revenue: £5m

The "merit payment" is prize money, the "overseas TV income" is also on a sliding scale based on league position - liverpool were paid £51m more than us based on their league position

The "facility fee" is based on how many times you are on TV - Liverpool were paid £18m more than us because Sky put them on TV more than they do us - that is what i think is bullshit

Newcastle who finished 12th received more money than the teams in 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th and 7th

and again, like i keep saying, this is all bullshit because of FFP, there is a system where TV comapnies can pay some clubs more than others regardless of performance, they can keep big clubs big

 

 

Fair point you know.

[HKP90]

7 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

We cannot be certain, but it's a strong hint in my mind:

Overdraft/Loan instead of cash injection together with Purslows publicly stated objective of being self sustainable. 

Personally I would be very happy if we don't take a dollar more from NSWE and are run in sustainable manner from now on. Even if it means less expensive signings in the future and more reliance on academy.

You say that now. How many would say that if we were 15th and staring down a relegation battle?

[Peter Griffin]

1 minute ago, Czarnikjak said:

Overdraft/Loan instead of cash injection

Obviously I don't know the details of cash flow etc at AVFC but having sold Jack it suggests that no cash injection was required. It is also important to note that it is an overdraft facility and not a loan. We did not receive any money from Barclays, we just agreed that if we want to go overdrawn in the future we are allowed to do so. I am with you on wanting a sustainable AVFC, and that is what NSWE and CP have said from the very start but I do not believe that NSWE will not invest further in the club in the form of equity.

[Peter Griffin]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

The "facility fee" is based on how many times you are on TV - Liverpool were paid £18m more than us because Sky put them on TV more than they do us - that is what i think is bullshit

 

I understand what you are saying, it is just I disagree. More people want to see Liverpool on TV than want to see Villa. Liverpool therefore increases the value of the broadcasting rights more than Villa. Therefore, Liverpool should get paid more than Villa. It doesn't matter what the PL call the payment, be that prize money or facility fee or whatever. The teams that increase the value of the broadcasting more than other teams deserve a greater slice of the pie

[Czarnikjak]

14 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

You say that now. How many would say that if we were 15th and staring down a relegation battle?

Sure, but that would mean that all the money they injected so far  was badly spent, project was not going well and we were being mismanaged. If that was the case, I would probably want them out of the club

They're private investors, not Qatari state, they won't keep injecting money forever not expecting return. Might as well be run in sustainable way now, just in case they need to get out for whatever reason.

[MrBlack]

13 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I understand what you are saying, it is just I disagree. More people want to see Liverpool on TV than want to see Villa. Liverpool therefore increases the value of the broadcasting rights more than Villa. Therefore, Liverpool should get paid more than Villa. It doesn't matter what the PL call the payment, be that prize money or facility fee or whatever. The teams that increase the value of the broadcasting more than other teams deserve a greater slice of the pie

But thanks to FFP, which prevents clubs spending more than they earn to catch up, it results in a glass ceiling that clubs outside the sky6 will never break through.