Lerner reasoning re the Financial Fair Play rules .

[Villa'Zawg]

The andersred blog, although compiled by a Man U fan is sound, and completes an authoratative comparison of us,Liverpool, Spurs, Manu/City, Arsenal Spurs.It also shows why we have some cost cutting to do:
http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/04/financial-fair-play-crunching-numbers.html

Interesting that.  Basically the income from Commercial activities is whats stopping us competing with Citeh/Spurs, and the fact our expenses have got out of kilter with our income.  As was suspected under Doug and not improved much under Lerner we are light years behind the others in the commercial income area and are struggling to catch up.  This is where Faulkner really needs to pull his finger out IMO over the next 2 seasons.

This isn't one that can be laid at Doug's door. There was full financial disclosure under Doug and we were never significantly behind our peers in terms of commercial revenues.

Spurs and Man City (the other two  non-Sky 4 teams in the Deloitte money list) have both increased commercial revenue by a significant percentage since 2006, ours has gone backwards.

All 3 clubs have increased broadcasting and matchday income, the football side of things, by similar percentages. This is driven by TV deals and increasing the charges to us mugs…, customers…, supporters. This is the stuff the board haven’t had to do much thinking about.

……………….2006….….2011
Spurs……..£43.7m….£88.3m +102%
Man City…£42.6m….£78.4m +84%
Villa ……....£39.6m….£76.5m +93%


Commercial revenue is a different story altogether. This is the business side of the business.

.................2006.......2011
Spurs.......£22.6m....£31.5m +72%
Man City...£19.3m....£46.7m +242%
Villa..........£16.3m....£13.1m -20%

I’ve been banging on about it for ages now and most people seem happy to accept the board’s assertion that wages are the issue.

[mazrimsbruv]

The andersred blog, although compiled by a Man U fan is sound, and completes an authoratative comparison of us,Liverpool, Spurs, Manu/City, Arsenal Spurs.It also shows why we have some cost cutting to do:
http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/04/financial-fair-play-crunching-numbers.html

Interesting that.  Basically the income from Commercial activities is whats stopping us competing with Citeh/Spurs, and the fact our expenses have got out of kilter with our income.  As was suspected under Doug and not improved much under Lerner we are light years behind the others in the commercial income area and are struggling to catch up.  This is where Faulkner really needs to pull his finger out IMO over the next 2 seasons.

This isn't one that can be laid at Doug's door. There was full financial disclosure under Doug and we were never significantly behind our peers in terms of commercial revenues.

Spurs and Man City (the other two  non-Sky 4 teams in the Deloitte money list) have both increased commercial revenue by a significant percentage since 2006, ours has gone backwards.

All 3 clubs have increased broadcasting and matchday income, the football side of things, by similar percentages. This is driven by TV deals and increasing the charges to us mugs…, customers…, supporters. This is the stuff the board haven’t had to do much thinking about.

……………….2006….….2011
Spurs……..£43.7m….£88.3m +102%
Man City…£42.6m….£78.4m +84%
Villa ……....£39.6m….£76.5m +93%


Commercial revenue is a different story altogether. This is the business side of the business.

.................2006.......2011
Spurs.......£22.6m....£31.5m +72%
Man City...£19.3m....£46.7m +242%
Villa..........£16.3m....£13.1m -20%

I’ve been banging on about it for ages now and most people seem happy to accept the board’s assertion that wages are the issue.

So this leaves two possible explainations:

1. The club's commercial revenue is more or less fixed around 10 to 20 Million mark and can't be increased because we're simply not marketable enough
2. Somebody at the club needs to lose their job.

For my part, I keep saying that our media image is appalling and must be affecting Aston Villa as a business and that the Board are doing nothing to improve it but I keep getting told that it makes no odds. That potential signings take no notice of the Media when considering whether or not to sign for us and potential sponsors take no notice either. As if sponsors don't care what image their product is associated with.

To increase revenue from sponsorship we need to attract the ones that pay big money. These types of businesses want to present themselves as successful by associating themselves with a successful football club. This will not happen whilst the Media contine to portray us as an unambitious, mid-table club with a clueless board at the helm.

[Greg N'Ash]

Success has to come first before revenue increases - thats just how it works. Anyone think West ham will be packing them in when they finally move? Course not. The whole thing is designed to ensure the clubs with the biggest revenue (the mancs, Madrids of this world) stay at the top - its so transparent to be almost laughable. If they were really interested in the financial security of the game they'd penalise clubs owing million in loans to third parties, but as stands, its like someone who's maxed out his credit cards on loans but making 30k a year being more financially secure that someone who doesn't work but has 1 million in the bank

[Stu]

To increase revenue from sponsorship we need to attract the ones that pay big money. These types of businesses want to present themselves as successful by associating themselves with a successful football club. This will not happen whilst the Media contine to portray us as an unambitious, mid-table club with a clueless board at the helm.

You can't blame them for making that assumption after the board made such a pigs ear out of appointing a new manager. Then after all the to-ing and fro-ing, they appointed Alex McLeish. That's about as unambitious as it gets.

[mazrimsbruv]

Success has to come first before revenue increases - thats just how it works.

Man City were no more successful than us during the period 2006 to 2010. They still more doubled their commercial revenue according to those figures.

[Concrete John]

Success has to come first before revenue increases - thats just how it works.

Man City were no more successful than us during the period 2006 to 2010. They still more doubled their commercial revenue according to those figures.

Would moving to the new stadium not account for a large chunk of that?

[Villa'Zawg]

Another thing that gets my goat about the way we discuss finance, is when we talk about Randy spending £200m. About half of that money is debt and the club is charged full commercial rates for the privilege. The last comparative figures I have are for 2008/9, there's very little altruistic about the interest Villa pay in comparison to other clubs with a similar ownership structure

Club, debt, annual interest.

Villa 72.3m 5.7m
West Ham 114.9 3.0m
Fulham 164m 1.0m
Sunderland 48.8m 0.7m
Chelsea £511.6m £0.7m
Wigan £54m £1.5m
Wolves £13m £0.0m
Blackburn £20m £0.8m
Hull £17m £0.4m

[mazrimsbruv]

Success has to come first before revenue increases - thats just how it works.

Man City were no more successful than us during the period 2006 to 2010. They still more doubled their commercial revenue according to those figures.

Would moving to the new stadium not account for a large chunk of that?

Not really. We're not talking about Matchday Revenue but Commercial Revenue which, as I understand it, includes sales of merchandise & sponsorship deals, which for us means the money from Nike plus whoever's name ends up on our shirts next season.

Oh, and Man Shitty moved to Wastelands in 2003.

[Risso]

Another thing that gets my goat about the way we discuss finance, is when we talk about Randy spending £200m. About half of that money is debt and the club is charged full commercial rates for the privilege. The last comparative figures I have are for 2008/9, there's very little altruistic about the interest Villa pay in comparison to other clubs with a similar ownership structure

Club, debt, annual interest.

Villa 72.3m 5.7m
West Ham 114.9 3.0m
Fulham 164m 1.0m
Sunderland 48.8m 0.7m
Chelsea £511.6m £0.7m
Wigan £54m £1.5m
Wolves £13m £0.0m
Blackburn £20m £0.8m
Hull £17m £0.4m

Not to mention the management charge.

[mazrimsbruv]

Another thing that gets my goat about the way we discuss finance, is when we talk about Randy spending £200m. About half of that money is debt and the club is charged full commercial rates for the privilege. The last comparative figures I have are for 2008/9, there's very little altruistic about the interest Villa pay in comparison to other clubs with a similar ownership structure

Club, debt, annual interest.

Villa 72.3m 5.7m
West Ham 114.9 3.0m
Fulham 164m 1.0m
Sunderland 48.8m 0.7m
Chelsea £511.6m £0.7m
Wigan £54m £1.5m
Wolves £13m £0.0m
Blackburn £20m £0.8m
Hull £17m £0.4m

Ouch! The Bank of Randy looks like an expensive place to shop for a loan!

[Chris Smith]

Presumably going two seasons without a sponsor made a significant dent in our commercial revenue.

[David_Nab]

Perhaps that shows with Man City ,spending money makes money.Having big stars in the team I imagine attracts sponsorship ,more shirt sales etc.

As for Randy if he is going to charge us interest like that ,isn't able to improve the commercial revenue and improve footballing matter's ie a proper scouting network then what is his end game ?

[Risso]

Commercial revenue is a different story altogether. This is the business side of the business.

.................2006.......2011
Spurs.......£22.6m....£31.5m +72%
Man City...£19.3m....£46.7m +242%
Villa..........£16.3m....£13.1m -20%

Blimey, good analysis.  That's pretty staggering actually.

[mazrimsbruv]

As for Randy if he is going to charge us interest like that ,isn't able to improve the commercial revenue and improve footballing matter's ie a proper scouting network then what is his end game ?

This is the question that is occupying my thoughts more and more.

As has been said on here, the McLeish appointment doesn't seem like a long term strategy, more of a short term stability one. If we see a scaling back in investment on playing side this summer I will start to wonder if this is the beginning of an exit strategy. Any such strategy would require Randy to tread carefully between recouping his loans whilst ensuring that we stay in the Premier League to remain attractive to potential buyers. Maybe he believes McLeish will do that and will work within any financial constraints imposed.

Villadawg, would you like to hazard a guess at the current (or near-future) market value of AVFC as a debt-free Premier League Club?

[Risso]

Villadawg, would you like to hazard a guess at the current (or near-future) market value of AVFC as a debt-free Premier League Club?

We aren't debt free though, that's the point.