paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 6 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: Unfortunately I think the top 6 is the top 6. The stats around what those teams have won in the last 20 years and how many of the champions league places they've taken are ridiculous. I personally don't believe it's possible to challenge them or join them (except maybe for the odd season) and sadly I'd rather teams didn't risk bankruptcy by trying. Very sad opinion I know. Then let’s stop spending loads on players and build the infrastructure instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talldarkandransome Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, Leeroy said: Latest Deloitte Money League: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68081262 Another year we don't make the list. Apparently we just missed out and were 21st with revenue of £214.4m, about £10m less than 20th placed Marseille: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nswe-problem-laid-bare-despite-28508712 I honestly don't understand how Tottenham's revenue has gone up by £100m, they finished 8th last season! We need to be making this list every year, we've done well to increase our revenue by about £35m since the year before but we need an even bigger increase this year to try to narrow the gap on those top teams. Spurs have got more seats, they charge more, have probably double the corporate and they probably sell more merch too. Being in London helps. And that's without winning anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 6 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: Unfortunately I think the top 6 is the top 6. The stats around what those teams have won in the last 20 years and how many of the champions league places they've taken are ridiculous. I personally don't believe it's possible to challenge them or join them (except maybe for the odd season) and sadly I'd rather teams didn't risk bankruptcy by trying. Very sad opinion I know. No way. We'll get there. Spurs had similar revenue to us about 15 years ago (maybe a bit higher because they were tapping into the Croatian and Russian markets buying players like Modric and Pavlyuchenko while we didn't even bother scouting back then and they also play in London) and now they make more money than Chelsea and Arsenal. We can get there, Heck is probably the most important person at the club to get this done, but he's a track record of doing it before in American sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Talldarkandransome said: Spurs have got more seats, they charge more, have probably double the corporate and they probably sell more merch too. Being in London helps. And that's without winning anything Read what I wrote again, I know they have all that, they did the year before too, I meant year on year it is incredible than it is up over £100m. Meanwhile Liverpool's revenue went down, Man United's went up by less than Tottenham's despite going up 2 places while Spurs went down 4 places, Arsenal's figure went up quite a bit but they made big improvements on the pitch, and Chelsea's went up by about £30m although that again is weird because they went from finishing 3rd to 12th. Anyhow, the point is if Tottenham can get that big an increase despite not making any European competition whatsoever then it's not really about where we finish in the league (although that helps a bit of course), it's more about the work our commercial department does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talldarkandransome Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Leeroy said: Read what I wrote again, I know they have all that, they did the year before too, I meant year on year it is incredible than it is up over £100m. Meanwhile Liverpool's revenue went down, Man United's went up by less than Tottenham's despite going up 2 places while Spurs went down 4 places, Arsenal's figure went up quite a bit but they made big improvements on the pitch, and Chelsea's went up by about £30m although that again is weird because they went from finishing 3rd to 12th. Anyhow, the point is if Tottenham can get that big an increase despite not making any European competition whatsoever then it's not really about where we finish in the league (although that helps a bit of course), it's more about the work our commercial department does. Apologies, I was struggling with the link. My point is, Spurs have been charging big money to get in for years (brother in law goes), and that continues to rise, we have only just started doing that really. Levi is tight as a ducks arse and will not waste any money on anything, I'm sure they get money from having NFL games (not sure if that could be included in figures). Their state of the art stadium isn't just football, they've got all sorts of stuff going on there. We are in Aston, we have football. It doesn't really matter how many seats we add we still just have football on matchdays. It's never gonna be a stop off point for anything else. The only way we can catch up money wise is to start winning trophies and getting into champs league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talldarkandransome Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 I've just looked on the Spuds site and their different levels of membership are comparable to ours, but the big difference is what you get with that membership. For the top adult one you get £45 worth to spend on stuff, we got a badge and a bottle. You are more likely to take that £45 to the shop and spend another £50 or £100 on there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talldarkandransome Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Their adult prices aren't much different to ours but they charge quite a bit more for juniors, more than double for Cat A games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Talldarkandransome said: Apologies, I was struggling with the link. My point is, Spurs have been charging big money to get in for years (brother in law goes), and that continues to rise, we have only just started doing that really. Levi is tight as a ducks arse and will not waste any money on anything, I'm sure they get money from having NFL games (not sure if that could be included in figures). Their state of the art stadium isn't just football, they've got all sorts of stuff going on there. We are in Aston, we have football. It doesn't really matter how many seats we add we still just have football on matchdays. It's never gonna be a stop off point for anything else. The only way we can catch up money wise is to start winning trophies and getting into champs league Yes Spurs have always been one of the fashionable London clubs, I think them being in London means they can charge more than we can because there is more money in the catchment area but being in London isn't a reason in itself for their commercial success, if it was only about London then Crystal Palace and Fulham would also be bringing in more than us. Levy has done a phenomenal job as chairman there (and yet still the Spuds numpties want him out and ENIC to sell up). I have a few Spurs mates myself and have been to the stadium, I love Villa Park too but you can't not be wowed by their stadium, it is absolutely state of the art. As you say Levy has hosted a lot of non-football events there too and really taken advantage of that, I know that Guns n Roses played there quite recently, which is possibly the reason for their large increase year on year. Levy is tight but he's an incredibly efficient businessman and the reason why they make the money that the top clubs do despite never winning any trophies. I don't really like the arrogance of Spurs as a club but they are the model for what we have to do, given size wise they are similar to us, to get where they have when they had no right to do so and out of all those Sky 6 clubs they are the only ones not in any debt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 17 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: Personally I'm in favour of it, Dr Xi nearly cost us our club, any move towards the majority of clubs running sustainably is a positive for me. Agreed. The concept is great. Unfortunately a handful of clubs were able to exploit the period before the rules came in to massively tilt the balance in their favour. Rules that allowed them to go massively into debt, build new stadia, etc which has given them a massive revenue advantage using methods that are now "banned" for everyone else. The rules would be fine if certain elements of the revenue that the game in general brings in were more fairly shared within the PL and the lower levels of the game. The trouble is that every element of "revenue" is skewed in favour of the teams at the top which makes it harder and harder for anyone else to grow. As well as being sustainable, clubs need to have the capacity to grow and develop. Unfortunately there are now a lot more clubs who are "stuck" at a certain level with no realistic means of being able to (sustainably) grow. It is crazy that the Championship play-off match is worth £100m to the winner. That doesn't promote sustainability - it almost encourages the opposite. I mean how does the 24th best team in the league grow sustainabIy when a one year "all in" gamble could generate so much more income? If more of the combined money were shared more evenly then you could have a much fairer system where (well run) clubs could make more sensible decisions on planning for their future (sustainably) rather than being forced into selling assets at below market value because it is the only way to balance the books. At the same time successful clubs would still be rewarded for their on field performance and for doing a better job at marketing / raising revenues themselves. Dr Xi nearly cost us our club. But the lack of fairness within FFP also almost got us relegated at a time when we could clearly afford to sign a striker but instead the only option we had was to sign a reserve player from Swansea. On the flip side - the current / future FFP rules might start working in favour of redressing the balance. How often can Chelsea afford to miss out on European competition before it starts to cut into their revenue position? They are already probably at the point of having to sell players they might prefer to keep - this will only accelerate if they continue to perform badly on the pitch. If we had a genuine Top 10 rather than a Top 6 (and we seem to be getting closer to that if clubs like Brighton, Newcastle, us, maybe West Ham can disrupt the Sky order) then the FFP rules could start to kick in and actively reduce the difference between the Sky 6 and the "new kids on the block". That said I do think a lot of clubs (us included) have been quite lazy when it comes to looking at revenue streams and how to generate more income. We can't blame FFP for that. We can't even blame other clubs who started looking at those streams well before we did. It feels like there is a lot we can do in this respect pretty quickly and pretty cheaply that will hopefully mean we can start eating into the revenue gap that currently exists. After all I think we've got more untapped potential than others who have been quicker at expanding into those streams and so have already claimed some / most of the benefits and will struggle to extract more income - the classic 80/20 model whereby you can quickly make significant improvements but then eventually every 1% gain becomes harder and harder to achieve. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Has everyone in the league suddenly all hit FFP limits at exactly the same time or are the Everton and potential Forest punishments the key factor in all this lack of activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich192 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Here’s a question. This new 70% of turnover spending model that is currently in action for UEFA, and being voted to be brought in for the Premier League. Is it a simple calculation, based on your turnover within that calendar year, with player amortisation, and related ‘FFP profits’ on players now redundant? If so, that would be great news for us with regards to getting rid of someone like Coutinho, as we wouldn’t be bothered about effectively ripping up his contract with no impact to FFP (a positive, even, as his wage would no longer be in the calculation). This might also see a move away from selling academy players for quick FFP profits. No doubt I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here, so please feel free to correct me if you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Rich192 said: Here’s a question. This new 70% of turnover spending model that is currently in action for UEFA, and being voted to be brought in for the Premier League. Is it a simple calculation, based on your turnover within that calendar year, with player amortisation, and related ‘FFP profits’ on players now redundant? If so, that would be great news for us with regards to getting rid of someone like Coutinho, as we wouldn’t be bothered about effectively ripping up his contract with no impact to FFP (a positive, even, as his wage would no longer be in the calculation). This might also see a move away from selling academy players for quick FFP profits. No doubt I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here, so please feel free to correct me if you know! I think all player costs come into the calc, so that would include fees and amortisation. Those, combined with salaries, can't be more than 70% of your revenue. I think it's 80% of revenue for the next calculation period, and won't be 70% for another 2 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Wainy316 said: Has everyone in the league suddenly all hit FFP limits at exactly the same time or are the Everton and potential Forest punishments the key factor in all this lack of activity? Probably a bit of both. But I do think that the Everton investigation and punishment has made a few clubs - who might have been sailing a little bit close for comfort / or who thought that they might be able to claim an exemption for a "minor mistake / miscalculation" / or balance the books with a key sale at the end of the season - take note and err on the side of caution. Especially if Forest and (allegedly) Wolves find that they are in line for punishment too. There aren't many clubs who can afford a 10 point penalty (or worse) without it having a pretty significant impact. FFP is pointless unless failing to comply means less points. Clearly the other big factors still at play are Man City and Chelsea. So whilst the PL are already backing themselves into a corner / building a case for precedence with their punishments for "simpler" breaches - I also think there are a few chairmen / CEOs making sure that they are watertight in terms of complying with the rules so that the biggest risk to the PL isn't Man City suing them or appealing any judgements but actually the other clubs fighting back if City are either found not guilty or escape severe sanctions (unless they can categorically prove that they acted within the rules). City will almost certainly "threaten" to remove their backing for the PL / wider UK economy if it looks like they might be severely punished - the "only" real counter-balance to that is for 18 or 19 of the other PL owners / investors (plus a handful from the Championship) to be stating that failure to adequately punish City when everyone else has been playing by the rules threatens the value/validity of their continued investment. Not to mention the backlash from fans and supporters along the lines of the ESL demonstrations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 hours ago, Leeroy said: Yes Spurs have always been one of the fashionable London clubs, I think them being in London means they can charge more than we can because there is more money in the catchment area but being in London isn't a reason in itself for their commercial success, if it was only about London then Crystal Palace and Fulham would also be bringing in more than us. Levy has done a phenomenal job as chairman there (and yet still the Spuds numpties want him out and ENIC to sell up). I have a few Spurs mates myself and have been to the stadium, I love Villa Park too but you can't not be wowed by their stadium, it is absolutely state of the art. As you say Levy has hosted a lot of non-football events there too and really taken advantage of that, I know that Guns n Roses played there quite recently, which is possibly the reason for their large increase year on year. Levy is tight but he's an incredibly efficient businessman and the reason why they make the money that the top clubs do despite never winning any trophies. I don't really like the arrogance of Spurs as a club but they are the model for what we have to do, given size wise they are similar to us, to get where they have when they had no right to do so and out of all those Sky 6 clubs they are the only ones not in any debt. They're in a fair bit of stadium debt but it's easily manageable, about £35 mil a year. I like how you say we need to do what they did, yet they got a space age stadium and we can't even get a new stand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 5 hours ago, Wainy316 said: Has everyone in the league suddenly all hit FFP limits at exactly the same time or are the Everton and potential Forest punishments the key factor in all this lack of activity? No UEFA are tightening their rules. Before you could spend over 100% of your revenue on squad costs (wages/transfer fees) that's now 90% and then 80% and finally 70%. So all teams essentially have to cut their spend and squad cost Edited January 25 by CVByrne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 25 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25 On 21/01/2024 at 23:09, HanoiVillan said: Imagine being dead, and then you get the message you've been summoned to the ouija board or whatever, and you turn up and you see it's the bloke who offed you. You'd be fuming! Be the last person you'd want to talk to. I’m not so sure mate, are you married? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Spurs charge a 100 quid to drive a go kart around the floor under the stadium. Place is just riddled with ways for people to part with cash.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talldarkandransome Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 38 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: Spurs charge a 100 quid to drive a go kart around the floor under the stadium. Place is just riddled with ways for people to part with cash.. And they still couldn't beat our high line 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Also we're forgetting Spurs have a court proven crook as an owner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 26 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26 8 minutes ago, CVByrne said: What is so hard for people to understand that they repeatedly ask this question? UEFA have tightened the rules and are phased in from 2023 to 2025 and the squad cost rule essentially means 30%+ reduction in terms of your squads cost Vs revenue. If you tighten the rules it means clubs need to tighten their expenditure. Got that, but don't you think it is strange that the spending has reduced dramatically this window, have all clubs just suddenly hit the edge of ffp limits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts