Tony's Tweets

[Brend'Watkins]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

[Risso]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

[Risso]

Who would the football authorities make an example of and throw the book at. PSG, Citeh or Villa?

I'll give you a clue, it won't be a French team or a Manx team

I'm not sure that Douglas Athletic, Laxey or Ramsey AFC will be breaching FFP rules any time soon!

[aj2k77]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

Man City seemed to be able to get around their sponsorship deals and naming rights quite comfortably. If there is a will there is a way, if the money is there.

[paul_e]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

Yep, the problem is no one is really sure what market rates means or how that is affected by the size of the fan base or the reputation of the club.  Sticking with Leeds and the £25m - Given they've got a smaller fan base, smaller ground, have been out of the top flight for a lot longer and have far fewer trophies, including having never won the european cup what does that make the market rate for us?  If recon said £40m would that be reasonable given the differences and who gets to decide?

As the more realistic option is back of shirt sponsor (which is happening as of the next game) what is a fair rate for that in comparison with other clubs in the championship?  We've been acknowledged by most as being the biggest club in the league so we can command a bigger deal, but how much bigger?

[Dave]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

Yep, the problem is no one is really sure what market rates means or how that is affected by the size of the fan base or the reputation of the club.  Sticking with Leeds and the £25m - Given they've got a smaller fan base, smaller ground, have been out of the top flight for a lot longer and have far fewer trophies, including having never won the european cup what does that make the market rate for us?  If recon said £40m would that be reasonable given the differences and who gets to decide?

While I appreciate we're talking hypotheticals, isn't there a decimal point missing from £25m and £40m?

[paul_e]

I just ran with the figure above, I actually have no idea what stadium naming rights have been worth for teams.

[Brend'Watkins]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

Man City seemed to be able to get around their sponsorship deals and naming rights quite comfortably. If there is a will there is a way, if the money is there.

Absolutely. RECON, although owners or part owners are a separate company to AVFC Ltd or whatever.  Naming rights are £200M, RECON want the naming rights and will pay. Legitimate business to get round the rules even though there is an association.

[Dave]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

Man City seemed to be able to get around their sponsorship deals and naming rights quite comfortably. If there is a will there is a way, if the money is there.

Absolutely. RECON, although owners or part owners are a separate company to AVFC Ltd or whatever.  Naming rights are £200M, RECON want the naming rights and will pay. Legitimate business to get round the rules even though there is an association.

Not anymore.

"UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’. UEFA has the power to adjust any artificial ‘mates rates’ deals and apply a lower value to the Break Even calculation"

[VILLA MOLE]

If the powers that be in football want to go down the route of restricting markets etc . they should look at caps on

players wages  agent fees and cost of  tickets

 

[Brend'Watkins]

Surely market rate is what someone is prepared to
Pay ??

That is correct.  Elland Rd's naming rights might get sold for £25M, that doesn't automatically mean VP will be the same.  If the club states they will only sell the naming rights for a fee above £200M then that becomes the market rate for VP naming rights.

And if it was a genuine arm's length transaction, with a completely unrelated party like say, BP or Fedex, than that would be fine.  If it was with one of Dr Tony's other group companies or subsidiaries, it wouldn't be.

Man City seemed to be able to get around their sponsorship deals and naming rights quite comfortably. If there is a will there is a way, if the money is there.

Absolutely. RECON, although owners or part owners are a separate company to AVFC Ltd or whatever.  Naming rights are £200M, RECON want the naming rights and will pay. Legitimate business to get round the rules even though there is an association.

Not anymore.

"UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’. UEFA has the power to adjust any artificial ‘mates rates’ deals and apply a lower value to the Break Even calculation"

Who legislates what is artificial or a fair value?  Villa Park is unique, there is similar out there but not  another in the world like it and that being the case nothing to compare it to. If the naming rights are £1.00 or £1billion then that's the price. A UEFA/FIFA ombudsman or watchdog or whatever can go and do one. The value is in the name and the association with the name, it can't be valued and certainly can't be valued by some suit in football. The buyer of the naming rights might just as easily be buying the naming rights for emotional reasons just as much as commercial. If for example RECON wanted to buy the Mona Lisa and the figure was £500M and then wanted to name it the RECON Mona Lisa  who's to stop them?

[old man villa fan]

The value is what a buyer will pay. If somebody wants to buy the rights to a name for a period of time. It is an investment (assuming the buyer can benefit from the association) based on future worth. The club could win the PL in 5 years time and the rights could be worth 20 times what somebody says they are worth now.  In other words, you cannot put an exact value on something now, that could increase in value in the future.  Which goes back to the value being what somebody will pay.

If the football powers say otherwise, they are just protecting the current elite clubs.

[ChicagoLion]

Sadly we don't get to decide Fair Value, so we could get a lump of cash from RECON, then UEFA decide its not fair value, block our promotion and the Doctor can spend the next few years suing the crap out of them.
Not the smartest busines decision.

There are firms that specialise in valuing Intelectual Property and Brands so there is no excuse to place your own made up value on something and try to blag it.

That is not to say that we are playing on a level playing field as far as sovereign wealth funds are concerned and thier ability to influence .

[Billy Walker]

The notion of "fair value" strikes me as being a contrived means that allows certain clubs to maintain a position of dominance.  When it comes to assessing "fair value" for Villa, as soon as we're back in the top flight, we would be well within our rights to market ourselves in the Arsenal/ Chelsea/ Spurs ballpark on the back of our history and past successes - yet why do I just know this won't be allowed to happen?  This is where we need a strong Chairman to stand up and challenge the status quo - could the Doctor be that man? I hope so.

[olaftab]

Yes Market value in Premier League is different and higher from market value in the Champianship.