Increasing Club Revenue

[The_Steve]

17 hours ago, maqroll said:

Purslow last year said the club wouldn't jump on the Socios bandwagon.

Disheartening change of stance. 

That’s grim. 

[PussEKatt]

A good way to increase revenue would be to visit other countries/regions instead of the USA every year.Yes,I know we dont go to the USA every year but how about tours to China,India,Australia,Korea,Japan.Show the flag all over the world and gain supporters from all over the world.

[Sulberto21]

4 hours ago, PussEKatt said:

A good way to increase revenue would be to visit other countries/regions instead of the USA every year.Yes,I know we dont go to the USA every year but how about tours to China,India,Australia,Korea,Japan.Show the flag all over the world and gain supporters from all over the world.

Something about Covid restrictions or something.

[sne]

Maybe been mentioned already

 

[Fairy In Boots]

I find the dismay about NFT’s fascinating can someone enlighten me as to the problem? 

[The Fun Factory]

Its a amazing how far we have slipped in commercial revenue with the 3 years out of the top flight. You would think being the biggest team in the second biggest city in the UK would be a licence to print money but obviously not as simple as that.

[blandy]

On 11/08/2021 at 22:25, TrentVilla said:

I don't really see the reasoning for the ground rent increasing, .....but I'm fairly sure that any rental agreement includes provision for this [more capacity] eventuality in order to satisfy observers.

That's your reason there.  You've answered your own question, I think - the rental we put on the books needs to be a fair and realistic figure and if the capacity and revenue raising aspects for the thing the club rents go up, the rental price goes up, to satisfy the FFP auditors that it's not some kind of gift in kind or owner injected freebie.

[Czarnikjak]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's your reason there.  You've answered your own question, I think - the rental we put on the books needs to be a fair and realistic figure and if the capacity and revenue raising aspects for the thing the club rents go up, the rental price goes up, to satisfy the FFP auditors that it's not some kind of gift in kind or owner injected freebie.

Our lease agreement seems to be only for 5years, as per the accounts below. I have no idea what happens after these 5 years, new lease at fair market value? Anyway we are set at £2.6m for now.

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Our lease agreement seems to be only for 5years, as per the accounts below. I have no idea what happens after these 5 years, new lease at fair market value? Anyway we are set at £2.6m for now.

I wonder whether now there are thoughts and initial tentative plans/exploration around a 10 year upgrade of the ground, whether they'll do another short term lease, maybe reflecting/provisioning for the upheaval that may occur during any work that's done?

[fightoffyour]

Can't we just buy the stadium back? That won't count for FFP and the cost will just increase the club's value whilst saving us the rent.

Isn't that part of the reason why selling stadiums has been banned in the Championship? A club could in theory do it multiple times, selling it for profit and buying it back for nothing in FFP terms..

[thabucks]

I wonder what effect Bailey has had on shirt sales so far as our headline signing alongside Buendia & Ings. As we have, an obvious, big manchild size hole to fill in terms of shirt sales - (I have 4 + 1 Grealish shirts …) it will be interesting to see the spread and if sales 

Next summer we will need a marquee signing to truly help push on commercially and increase income to the next level. It’s feels right now an almost impossible leap to catch up with Spurs L€ Ar$e, Ch€l$ki, CryMeALiverpool, Manure and the Kurrupt oil barons financially within the next decade if ever . The chasm grows evermore annually almost exponentially … 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by thabucks

[useless]

Quote

This is a little misleading, though. Why? Well as the FT’s sports correspondent Murad Ahmed has written, the main beneficiaries from football shirt sales are not the clubs but the manufacturers — in the case of Juventus, that’s German sportswear brand adidas. Indeed further down the article, Business Insider notes that the club only tends to receive between 10 and 15 per cent of the proceeds from shirt sales.

FT

Edited September 7, 2021 by blandy

[OutByEaster?]

For us, that picture is worse still, in our case not only does the manufacturer take a big chunk, but our retail is owned by fanatics - I have a feeling that additional sales increases their profit, not the clubs - I'm not sure how they pay for the licence to 'own' Villa merchandise and it might be that sales levels trigger payments back to the club, but the club doesn't own the shirts, Fanatics do and on an individual sale - the money goes to them, not to Aston Villa.

 

[OutByEaster?]

Next summer we have an chance to drop Fanatics, change our shirt manufacturer and renegotiate our main shirt sponsor - it's a massive opportunity for the club.

 

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

For us, that picture is worse still, in our case not only does the manufacturer take a big chunk, but our retail is owned by fanatics - I have a feeling that additional sales increases their profit, not the clubs - I'm not sure how they pay for the licence to 'own' Villa merchandise and it might be that sales levels trigger payments back to the club, but the club doesn't own the shirts, Fanatics do and on an individual sale - the money goes to them, not to Aston Villa.

It’s a good while ago, but at an SCG back in the early RL days that I went to, it was explained that the kit maker paid Villa x amount, then Villa had to buy 20,000 shirts from them at full wholesale price. This meant the club had to sell them at a price that covered that cost. Meanwhile JD sports or whoever could sell shirts for less, having got theirs at a lower price. I’m sure things have moved on since that legacy deal from the Ellis era, but until or unless the club is in a stronger position we’re always going to struggle to make large amounts from kit deals

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

It’s a good while ago, but at an SCG back in the early RL days that I went to, it was explained that the kit maker paid Villa x amount, then Villa had to buy 20,000 shirts from them at full wholesale price. This meant the club had to sell them at a price that covered that cost. Meanwhile JD sports or whoever could sell shirts for less, having got theirs at a lower price. I’m sure things have moved on since that legacy deal from the Ellis era, but until or unless the club is in a stronger position we’re always going to struggle to make large amounts from kit deals

Yep, but where we're different to most clubs is that we don't own our in house retail operation - our club shop is essential a Fanatics store with a Villa badge on it - it was interesting that Nicola Ibbetson said at a recent meeting that the club had under-ordered on shirts which is why there had been limited stock - I'd have thought that Fanatics were in control of that, although the details of how this arrangement works have always been particularly murky.

I'm guessing that Fanatics pay Villa a fee for ownership of the brand and then become the retailer (the JD sports) with Villa no longer having a direct outlet. It used to be that when you brought kit from the club shop a much higher percentage of that money went directly to the club, so even though the prices might have been more expensive, at least you knew that the money was going to Villa. That's not true in our current arrangement.

Incidentally, that's also why stuff like the reward points and season ticket ownership can't be linked to discounts on shirts and training kits - Fanatics aren't going to give anything away to customers of another company, even if they're really good customers - they'd be charging any discount back to the club.

If the Fanatics deal does work on a fee basis then it's likely that the fee is pretty low given when the deal was established and the state of the club at the time and if it's purely fee based then I'd guess that the club has made absolutely no increased revenue on increased kit sales during our renaissance of the last three years - it was a deal to bring in 'today' money for a club that was wobbling under Tony Xia, not a deal to protect the future revenues of a thriving colossus.

Personally I suspect it's a horrible deal for the club, I'm sure it's a horrible deal for the supporters and I sense it's a pretty good deal for Fanatics. I look forward to it ending and I hope we'll see an increase in revenues as a result.

 

 

[a m ole]

 

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Yep, but where we're different to most clubs is that we don't own our in house retail operation - our club shop is essential a Fanatics store with a Villa badge on it - it was interesting that Nicola Ibbetson said at a recent meeting that the club had under-ordered on shirts which is why there had been limited stock - I'd have thought that Fanatics were in control of that, although the details of how this arrangement works have always been particularly murky.

I'm guessing that Fanatics pay Villa a fee for ownership of the brand and then become the retailer (the JD sports) with Villa no longer having a direct outlet. It used to be that when you brought kit from the club shop a much higher percentage of that money went directly to the club, so even though the prices might have been more expensive, at least you knew that the money was going to Villa. That's not true in our current arrangement.

Incidentally, that's also why stuff like the reward points and season ticket ownership can't be linked to discounts on shirts and training kits - Fanatics aren't going to give anything away to customers of another company, even if they're really good customers - they'd be charging any discount back to the club.

If the Fanatics deal does work on a fee basis then it's likely that the fee is pretty low given when the deal was established and the state of the club at the time and if it's purely fee based then I'd guess that the club has made absolutely no increased revenue on increased kit sales during our renaissance of the last three years - it was a deal to bring in 'today' money for a club that was wobbling under Tony Xia, not a deal to protect the future revenues of a thriving colossus.

Personally I suspect it's a horrible deal for the club, I'm sure it's a horrible deal for the supporters and I sense it's a pretty good deal for Fanatics. I look forward to it ending and I hope we'll see an increase in revenues as a result.

 

 

I think this is pretty close to the way the deal works, but it meant a big lump sum upfront which is why we did it in the first place.

We’re definitely renegotiating a better deal the usual way, how else would anyone explain the absolutely disgusting sick green training gear other than a final **** you from Fanatics?

Edited September 7, 2021 by a m ole

[Woody1000]

46 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Next summer we have an chance to drop Fanatics, change our shirt manufacturer and renegotiate our main shirt sponsor - it's a massive opportunity for the club.

 

It’s a shame we couldn’t have kept hold of JG for 1 more year, I feel like we would’ve been in a better negotiating position for potential brands and sponsors. I’m sure we will get the best deal that we can though.

[OutByEaster?]

5 minutes ago, Woody1000 said:

It’s a shame we couldn’t have kept hold of JG for 1 more year, I feel like we would’ve been in a better negotiating position for potential brands and sponsors. I’m sure we will get the best deal that we can though.

I think that's true, but not £100m true. 

The benefit of keeping JG would have been having JG - commercially, that £100m is pretty hard to top.

 

[DevonIsAPlaceOnEarth]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Next summer we have an chance to drop Fanatics, change our shirt manufacturer and renegotiate our main shirt sponsor - it's a massive opportunity for the club.

 

Would not be surprised if the Fanatics deal was a reason for Nassef not pushing for a nice Adidas deal for us. One thing is for sure, with all those deals up we are in for a significant sponsorship boost this summer I would expect.