NSWE Investment

[Sexual Ealing]

Clubs have always benefitted from non football events held at the ground. Be it Billy Graham, Panini swap shops, business seminars or anything else. Cov and Bolton have done PDC events for another example, no clubs are doing these things for any other reason than to make more money so they should go in your accounts.

Granted, but it gets more complicated because we sold the facility (The Warehouse) and some credible sources say we’ve therefore given up our right to the future revenue.

Surely the entity that owns the facility gets rent, and the entity that runs a business from/in the facility gets the revenue? It's how the world works, isn't it?!

[PeterWithesShin]

How do people think shops work, hardly any actually own the building they are in.

[kippaxvilla2]

It will 100 percent this.  No way would we invest in that venue for any other reason than to benefit the football club.

[Somniloquism]

How do people think shops work, hardly any actually own the building they are in.

And West Ham never owning their stadium doesn't mean they don't get money from it.

[LeeB]

How do people think shops work, hardly any actually own the building they are in.

And West Ham never owning their stadium doesn't mean they don't get money from it.

It should mind.

[Dogtanian]

Yep, idiotic deal that was.

There needed to have been reviews for running costs, provisions for extra games, and a proportion of income earned.

[Percy McCarthy]

How do people think shops work, hardly any actually own the building they are in.

And West Ham never owning their stadium doesn't mean they don't get money from it.

Posted in error.

[Percy McCarthy]

This is what someone sent to me the other day about The Warehouse…

The club no longer owns the revenue. Because Aston Villa explicitly sold the operating rights to their parent company (NSWE Holding) the money generated by yhe venue belongs to the parent company, not the football club. Even if Villa had retained a percentage via an agreement, it would still fail to satisfy SCR rules.

The Core Football Rule: the SCR framework dictates that a club can only spend a percentage of its adjusted revenue base. This is strictly locked down to core footballing income: tickets, TV rights, and official commercial sponsorships.

I mentioned that we didn’t own Villa Park and he said that we had a sole leasehold and arrangement agreed with owners that allowed us to keep the revenue.

[Dogtanian]

Again, it comes down to the commercial agreement. They've literally spoken about the Warehouse increasing matchday revenue.

There is nothing in the SCR rules that I have seen that say anything about ownership of the property.

[Percy McCarthy]

Again, it comes down to the commercial agreement. They've literally spoken about the Warehouse increasing matchday revenue.

There is nothing in the SCR rules that I have seen that say anything about ownership of the property.

This bit doesn’t relate to the ownership of the property:

“The Core Football Rule: the SCR framework dictates that a club can only spend a percentage of its adjusted revenue base. This is strictly locked down to core footballing income: tickets, TV rights, and official commercial sponsorships.”

[Dogtanian]

Again, it comes down to the commercial agreement. They've literally spoken about the Warehouse increasing matchday revenue.

There is nothing in the SCR rules that I have seen that say anything about ownership of the property.

This bit doesn’t relate to the ownership of the property:

“The Core Football Rule: the SCR framework dictates that a club can only spend a percentage of its adjusted revenue base. This is strictly locked down to core footballing income: tickets, TV rights, and official commercial sponsorships.”

The rules I have seen also include events and non-football activities at the home stadium.

We will know more when the Premier League handbook comes out for the season.

[Percy McCarthy]

For once, I’m not trying to be argumentative. Happy to gain some clarity through others’ knowledge here.

[Dogtanian]

I could understand if they said we couldn't claim the revenue because it's not physically part of the stadium, although it's on our ground. But the ownership thing doesn't make any sense to me.

Until the rules come out I guess everyone is speculating.

[ian c.]

For those of us with nothing better to do the link below defines what is considered relevant income and expenses.

UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations

J.2.1.n is probably the relevant part.

(Edit: although it is quite possible that I have misinterpreted it all.)