Increasing Club Revenue

[HKP90]

11 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

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.

Not necessarily, it's an arms race. You have to invest every year or you go backwards. You don't stand still. 

The injection of money is with a view to increasing equity in the club. They don't just sink money into a hole with no return, they put money in to get better players, gain a better league position, a bigger following etc. All of this equates to the value of a club. 

NSWE have put approximately £300M or so since 2018.

Villa's current value according to Transfermarkt is £367.48M

In June 2018 the value of the club was £69.3M 

That's why it's an investment. They fund the acquisition of players, but ultimately the value of the club offsets those losses (if the investment is undertaken wisely). 

Given that the value of the lowest of the top 4 is £791M, if villa could break into it by spending say £200M, they would still come out winners.  

Of course they will continue to put money in, providing they see an opportunity to get to the next level in terms of club value. And that's without any of the other revenue streams. 

[NeilS]

Maybe our best way of increasing revenue is to look into further sponsorship deals, and I know many people fear this one but maybe we have to look at sponsorship of Villa Park. Maybe Wes could pull a few strings and get one of his companies to sponsor the ground to raise a few £million extra per season?

I quite like the sound of "Fortress" Villa Park .

What does everybody else think to stadium sponsorship?

[HKP90]

4 minutes ago, NeilS said:

Maybe our best way of increasing revenue is to look into further sponsorship deals, and I know many people fear this one but maybe we have to look at sponsorship of Villa Park. Maybe Wes could pull a few strings and get one of his companies to sponsor the ground to raise a few £million extra per season?

I quite like the sound of "Fortress" Villa Park .

What does everybody else think to stadium sponsorship?

I'm not that bothered, in that everyone will still call it Villa Park. 

I would be if it was a new stadium. Etihad. Just reeks of Corporate. 

[Peter Griffin]

17 minutes ago, NeilS said:

Maybe our best way of increasing revenue is to look into further sponsorship deals

We just just sell a player every few years for 100m and we will be in  great position

[NeilS]

10 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I'm not that bothered, in that everyone will still call it Villa Park. 

I would be if it was a new stadium. Etihad. Just reeks of Corporate. 

Same here, we are so far behind everyone else and we can't always expect NSWE to pick up the difference to compete. I think it will be something we look at in the next 5 years as we renovate and upgrade VP, and improve our standing as a regular in the top half of the league.

[MotoMkali]

6 hours 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

The elite club argument is such bolloocks. The Premier league is the most watched league because its depth of competition is the best. Spains top teams have been better most of the time for the last decade. With barca, atleti, real, and Sevilla all having success in Europe.

Only recently have the English top 4 been comparable to the top 4 in Spain and has mainly been on par with Germany. 

It's the fallacy Italy fell into. It was the top league for nearly a decade but they made the top teams a closed shop. There was no competition and eventually all the fans ekft because it was boring. People watch not because Chelsea and City are going to win. But because 17 of the 20 teams will probably put up a good fight. Whether or not its on a rainy Tuesday night in Burnley. 

[Peter Griffin]

5 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

The elite club argument is such bolloocks. The Premier league is the most watched league because its depth of competition is the best. Spains top teams have been better most of the time for the last decade. With barca, atleti, real, and Sevilla all having success in Europe.

Only recently have the English top 4 been comparable to the top 4 in Spain and has mainly been on par with Germany. 

It's the fallacy Italy fell into. It was the top league for nearly a decade but they made the top teams a closed shop. There was no competition and eventually all the fans ekft because it was boring. People watch not because Chelsea and City are going to win. But because 17 of the 20 teams will probably put up a good fight. Whether or not its on a rainy Tuesday night in Burnley. 

I agree that the PL needs competition and the PL has the benefit over the other leagues in that there is more than just two teams competing for the league and cups. But it is deluded to think that the PL does not need a set of elite clubs to participate in the league in command the huge fees it charges for broadcasting. 

[MotoMkali]

Just now, Peter Griffin said:

I agree that the PL needs competition and the PL has the benefit over the other leagues in that there is more than just two teams competing for the league and cups. But it is deluded to think that the PL does not need a set of elite clubs to participate in the league in command the huge fees it charges for broadcasting. 

Yeah it needs good teams. Those teams don't need to be the current ones. And so what you are lowering the income of Liverpool by about 20-30 mil? That's one shaquiri. Not exactly a big deal. But for Burnley or Norwich. That's huge. That's 2 or 3 summers spending. It will make these clubs better (and some more money really needs to go to championship clubs as well) and in turn it increases their global fan base. Which in turn increases TV revenue. Hell if the PL just nutted up and created their own streaming service they'd massively boost their global income. 

[Peter Griffin]

8 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

Yeah it needs good teams. Those teams don't need to be the current ones

I agree, I have said that all along and I don't agree with this idea of the Sky6 or it being a closed shop. Arsenal and Leicester have proven it is not a closed shop. Yes, it is difficult to become one of the elite clubs but once a club is an elite club they deserve to earn more money than the lower clubs.

[ThunderPower_14]

The PL needs good teams but they really only need to be competitive in Europe, they don't need to sweep all before them. Ultimately the strength of the Spanish clubs was based on them overextending themselves financially anyway.

The real strength of the Premier League lies in the fact that there's a big game against a big club every 2nd week. That's why it's the biggest league in the world. 

[CVByrne]

7 hours 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

The NFL make plenty of money without one team dominating 70% of the wins in each decade. Competition is in itself an attraction. I think the Premier League is the most successful football league because it's the most competitive relative to the others.

Look at Bayern, PSG and Juve over the last few years. Barca and Real. 

[Xela]

Surely ground expansion would help? Huge waiting list for season tickets now - close to 20k on the list.

Redevelopment of North Stand? 

[Peter Griffin]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

The NFL make plenty of money without one team dominating 70% of the wins in each decade. Competition is in itself an attraction. I think the Premier League is the most successful football league because it's the most competitive relative to the others.

Look at Bayern, PSG and Juve over the last few years. Barca and Real. 

NFL is a franchise and is the equivalent of the Super League that the 12 clubs wanted last year. Its not a like for like comparison.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Peter Griffin
Fixed a typo

[sidcow]

9 hours ago, QldVilla said:

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.

Scotchland teaches us this. 

It's also the very exact and only reason why The PL is a bigger more attractive product than Spain and Italy which used to be more powerful. 

Anyone can win excitement is far far more appealing than 2 or 3 teams completely dominating. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

I think our atmosphere is another reason for the success of the Premier League. When you watch Italian and Spanish games it sounds so quiet even when there’s a full stadium. 
 

This adds to the intensity of the games. Last year was mind numbing at times.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Vive_La_Villa

[dont_do_it_doug.]

9 hours 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 don't think anybody is suggesting that we necessarily want more Burnley and less Man United, although personally I would much rather see a more even distribution of fixtures regardless, for integrity of the game reasons.  

Ultimately, the big clubs can want what they like. The broadcasters hold most of the cards here, they simply choose not to play them.

Edited September 30, 2021 by dont_do_it_doug.

[QldVilla]

11 hours 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. 

But you continue to forget football is cyclical. Man City 20 years couldn’t sell anything in the old 3rd division and the way they have gone about it has turned most football fans off due to the greed. Sky don’t want to show football with half empty stadiums or did you forget Pep’s rant two weeks ago?

[CVByrne]

10 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I don't think anybody is suggesting that we necessarily want more Burnley and less Man United, although personally I would much rather see a more even distribution of fixtures regardless, for integrity of the game reasons.  

Ultimately, the big clubs can want what they like. The broadcasters hold most of the cards here, they simply choose not to play them.

Sky and BT need to be cut out and Premier League create it's own streaming platform, ideally with the football League so the pyramid can be fixed for the good of the game in England. It's at the point that happens there is a massive jump in income for all teams that can allow a fairer distribution of the income.

[OutByEaster?]

44 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Sky and BT need to be cut out and Premier League create it's own streaming platform, ideally with the football League so the pyramid can be fixed for the good of the game in England. It's at the point that happens there is a massive jump in income for all teams that can allow a fairer distribution of the income.

But the pressure coming from the super-clubs is not to create a collective income based on streaming, it's to use streaming to concentrate incomes - so that a stream of Norwich vs Newcastle, watched by 300,000 people around the world brings in half a million pounds each for the two clubs, whilst Man Utd vs Liverpool, with a global audience of a billion brings in overr a hundred million for each team. 

The big battle as we move from TV to streaming is to retain the collective income structure that's already been eroded in TV through the changes to the Champions league structure and the changes to the way TV money is distributed across the Premier League and English leagues.

Each time we move from one broadcast model to the next, there seems to be an increased concentration in the way the incomes are distributed - it'll take a massive collective effort from clubs, fans and media to prevent that happening again.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

But the pressure coming from the super-clubs is not to create a collective income based on streaming, it's to use streaming to concentrate incomes - so that a stream of Norwich vs Newcastle, watched by 300,000 people around the world brings in half a million pounds each for the two clubs, whilst Man Utd vs Liverpool, with a global audience of a billion brings in overr a hundred million for each team. 

The big battle as we move from TV to streaming is to retain the collective income structure that's already been eroded in TV through the changes to the Champions league structure and the changes to the way TV money is distributed across the Premier League and English leagues.

Each time we move from one broadcast model to the next, there seems to be an increased concentration in the way the incomes are distributed - it'll take a massive collective effort from clubs, fans and media to prevent that happening again.

Absolutely right. It's what the whole breakaway thing was about - the current "big" clubs grabbing and keeping more money at the expense of everyone else. The utter words removed.