Lerner reasoning re the Financial Fair Play rules .

[Rudy Can't Fail]

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

Wasn't the 32 Red deal only worth about £600k in the first season and £800k for the second? We've never managed to get any decent sponsorship revenue for as long as I can remember. For the sake of an extra few quid, I guess Randy preferred to give it away.

[Concrete John]

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.

But that alone is fueled by playing matters.  If you're going to have mego signings parading around you can rightly charge more to have logos/names on their shirts or associated with the club.

[Brend'Watkins]

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.

This is where the general's thread comes into it's own.

General,

What are the club doing to redress it's pitiful commercial income?

[mazrimsbruv]

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.

My point was if Lerner begins to claw back the loan money through player transfers. He could begin that process right now by selling both Young & Downing and bringing in replacements on a free and loan deals. For example signing Seb Laarson and bringing back NRC.

He could generate £20 to £25 million in this transfer window in order to start paying down the debt.

[Concrete John]

My point was if Lerner begins to claw back the loan money through player transfers. He could begin that process right now by selling both Young & Downing and bringing in replacements on a free and loan deals. For example signing Seb Laarson and bringing back NRC.

He could generate £20 to £25 million in this transfer window in order to start paying down the debt.

The thing about that though is the value of the playing squad id reflected in the value of the club.  So that £25-25m would come off the debt, but then also come off the club's value were he to sell up.   

[Villa'Zawg]

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?

Very difficult to come up with football club valuations even on a revenue or discounted cash flow basis. Forbes valued the club at £168m in 2009.

[mazrimsbruv]

My point was if Lerner begins to claw back the loan money through player transfers. He could begin that process right now by selling both Young & Downing and bringing in replacements on a free and loan deals. For example signing Seb Laarson and bringing back NRC.

He could generate £20 to £25 million in this transfer window in order to start paying down the debt.

The thing about that though is the value of the playing squad id reflected in the value of the club.  So that £25-25m would come off the debt, but then also come off the club's value were he to sell up.   

But in accounting terms isn't their current value much lower than what we paid due to amortisation? So, if I have it right, Young's value is only a couple of million as a current asset, so a sale at £17M represents a £15M profit from this sale alone. Downing by the same token is currently a £6M asset which could generate a further £14M profit (say). In total £29M for £8M worth of assets.

I'm not being negative or scare-mongering here, I'm just thinking out loud whilst continuing to try and make sense of this managerial appointment which even the Media, with their creative talents, seem to be baffled by.   

[Rip Van We Go Again]

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.

This is where the general's thread comes into it's own.

General,

What are the club doing to redress it's pitiful commercial income?

FROM THE GENERAL

'Bren-d...You say 'pitiful commercial income' This disappoints me. Randy KNOWS the tasks we face with commercial revenue, but to say 'pitiful' is an insult to all the HARD WORKING people behind the scenes at our club, yes, OUR CLUB. I can take criticism when it is constructive and justified, what I can not take is when you imply THAT WE ARE NOT UP TO THE TASK.
Bren-d when you say the commercial income is 'pitiful' you are effectively wiping your ass on an Aston Villa flag, you insult me, that's fine, I have broad shoulders.
But NOBODY should slate Randy for the investment he makes in the club (APR 23.76%).
You've more or less said that you won't renew your season ticket bren-d, that's a real shame, do that if you must, but PLEASE don't ever call us 'wasters' which you more or less did with your unwarranted attack on the club, it's staff and all of it's immediate families.'

[WarszaVillan]

The general is always underlining how he has broad shoulders although judging by his reactions to criticism they seem pretty thin to me. Rather than throwing out slogans in capital letters perhaps he should address the issues at hand.

[adrenachrome]

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.

This is where the general's thread comes into it's own.

General,

What are the club doing to redress it's pitiful commercial income?

FROM THE GENERAL

'Bren-d...You say 'pitiful commercial income' This disappoints me. Randy KNOWS the tasks we face with commercial revenue, but to say 'pitiful' is an insult to all the HARD WORKING people behind the scenes at our club, yes, OUR CLUB. I can take criticism when it is constructive and justified, what I can not take is when you imply THAT WE ARE NOT UP TO THE TASK.
Bren-d when you say the commercial income is 'pitiful' you are effectively wiping your ass on an Aston Villa flag, you insult me, that's fine, I have broad shoulders.
But NOBODY should slate Randy for the investment he makes in the club (APR 23.76%).
You've more or less said that you won't renew your season ticket bren-d, that's a real shame, do that if you must, but PLEASE don't ever call us 'wasters' which you more or less did with your unwarranted attack on the club, it's staff and all of it's immediate families.'

Ya daft apeth Fletcha.

Very good, though.

[Dave Cooper please]

The general is always underlining how he has broad shoulders although judging by his reactions to criticism they seem pretty thin to me. Rather than throwing out slogans in capital letters perhaps he should address the issues at hand.

Fetch the keepnet.

[eamonn]

Are you sure our commercial income is less now than when Douglas was in charge?
That just doesn't seem to scan. I'm sure I've read and seen figures before stating inroads had been made there, certainly not that we were down 20%.

[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.

This is where the general's thread comes into it's own.

General,

What are the club doing to redress it's pitiful commercial income?

FROM THE GENERAL

'Bren-d...You say 'pitiful commercial income' This disappoints me. Randy KNOWS the tasks we face with commercial revenue, but to say 'pitiful' is an insult to all the HARD WORKING people behind the scenes at our club, yes, OUR CLUB. I can take criticism when it is constructive and justified, what I can not take is when you imply THAT WE ARE NOT UP TO THE TASK.
Bren-d when you say the commercial income is 'pitiful' you are effectively wiping your ass on an Aston Villa flag, you insult me, that's fine, I have broad shoulders.
But NOBODY should slate Randy for the investment he makes in the club (APR 23.76%).
You've more or less said that you won't renew your season ticket bren-d, that's a real shame, do that if you must, but PLEASE don't ever call us 'wasters' which you more or less did with your unwarranted attack on the club, it's staff and all of it's immediate families.'

Scarily accurate as ever by the Talented Mr Fletcher.

[Villa'Zawg]

Are you sure our commercial income is less now than when Douglas was in charge?
That just doesn't seem to scan. I'm sure I've read and seen figures before stating inroads had been made there, certainly not that we were down 20%.

The figures are from the Deloitte football rich list, although I've just realised the first figures were from the 2005 rich list not 2006.

[pete bland]

Are you sure our commercial income is less now than when Douglas was in charge?
That just doesn't seem to scan. I'm sure I've read and seen figures before stating inroads had been made there, certainly not that we were down 20%.

It's not the figures are wrong.

Commercial: ...income from commercial activities of £9.9m (2005: £10.5m) was broadly in line overall with the previous year, other than the conference and banqueting business which suffered as a result of tougher competition from other conference centres and as a result of the Holte Suite being closed for a period during refurbishment works.

Also, apart from the 2006 edit - (and 2005) end edit- figures being wrong, the 2011 figure is not available, yet.

So  the 2006 figure is wrong and the 2011 figure is not available yet, and the 2010 accounts had commercial income at approx 14mill which is up by >50%.

I should also say that it looks like the figures for Spurs and Man City are compiled differently to Villa - they count hospitality as commercial revenue, whereas Villa count it as matchday revenue, for example.

For example, Spurs:
2010 Turnover £119m (up from £113m in 2009)
Gate and match-day income £27m
TV and broadcasting £52m
Sponsorship and corporate hospitality £26m
Merchandising £8m
Commercial activities £8m
i.e. Spurs commercial and merchandising was 4 mill higher than Villa. [Sponsorship excluded (as ours was given away)]. They do much better in a number of areas, but on pure commercial terms, not as much claimed in the analysis. I would wager their sponsorship deal would be significantly better and bext year their Champs league involvement will show up and make a huge difference.

Manchester City
2010 Turnover £125m (up from £87m in 2009)
Gate and match-day income £18m
TV and broadcasting £54m
Commercial £53m - staggering amount, even allowing that it includes what Villa and Spurs record differently. Then again, who is it that sponsors them, Ah, that's it, their owners and Etihad, whatever one of those is, but perhaps they pay more than market worth? [just a guess]

Aston Villa (these seem to be figures from a year before the City and Spurs ones, possibly)
Turnover £91m (up from £84m in 2008)
Gate and match-day income £24m
TV and broadcasting £52m
Commercial £14m

Spurs and Man City seem to count corporate hospitality as "commercial" while Villa count it as "Matchday revenue" - so Villa have significantly higher matchday revenue than City, despite the relative crowd sizes, while Spurs matchday revenue is similar, despite much higher prices.

It's far from simple, and a bean counter with a thinking head on would need ot look at it and point out all my mistakes etc.

The Villa accounts, I've linked, the other clubs is from this link, as I didn't want to spend ages fishing them all out from individual sites