FFP

[sid1964]

Good podcast by Claret & Blue about the losses, FFP etc...

[VILLA MOLE]

While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.

That's a reason that FFP is seriously flawed. In most other industries, you have to revalue your assets at 'fair value' periodically, so if you have a building rising in value, that gets reflected in the accounts. It doesn't happen with footballers, so we've got Kamara valued at nowt, when in reality to buy a player of his standing we'd be looking at shelling out c. £70m. And you could say the same about Luiz, McGinn, Martinez etc.

I guess fair value in football would be challenging to agree on but without it the whole system is screwed. It's currently incentivising academy farms not player or club development.

Yes but if you were limited on this farming it would help

[LeeS]

Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?

Or Wes rents out VP for his kids to play in when its not being used. Cost £1m per day.

[Dante Lavelli]

The jump in wages will possibly include paying off Gerrard and villareal so could be skewed by one off payments rather than an ongoing trend.

[Dogtanian]

The jump in wages will possibly include paying off Gerrard and villareal so could be skewed by one off payments rather than an ongoing trend.

I think we offered Emery and his team a lot to sweeten the deal, so there will definitely be an increase.

Also, we don't know what the terms of Purslow's exit are yet and how much that has cost.

[Dante Lavelli]

Would Purslow’s departure be in these figures? He had shares in the club so that could be another big one off payment registered against wages.

I’ve no idea, just trying to find reasons for optimism.

[Drummond]

I'll have a proper look later, but to be honest there isn't a lot that hasn't been said already. The two main differences between the current set of accounts and the year before is wages, at about £60m increase. The other big difference is that we obviously didn't get £100m for a player this year.

You can see that there's £4m of community expenditure, £14.5m youth team and £2.5m on the women's team,  so that's £21m that can be deducted for FFP purposes to start with.

If only that youth investment could result in just one or two players making the Premier League grade with us, we would have less to worry about.

I know right, we've hardly had any positives from our Academy recently, only Ramsey J, Iroegbunam, Kellyman, Kesler-Hayden, and O'Reilly have played any games and others that played and were sold raised hardly any cash at all over the past couple of years. The only ones that spring to mind are Archer, Ramsey A., Philogene, Chukwuemeka, Davis and some unknown, what's his name, Greasyish?

[Beard82]

https://twitter.com/espenstrand/status/1765352481771454732

[olaftab]

Thanks Jack you rat and thank you Abu city.

[Drummond]

Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?

Isn't that just another way of saying 'fuck the rules' though?

[Brazilian Villain]

Seems fine, but then there's the SHA verdict. https://twitter.com/KARLFZONE/status/1765379532821852507

[Risso]

Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?

Isn't that just another way of saying 'fuck the rules' though?

I think you might be taking the post a little bit more seriously than I intended...

[Drummond]

Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?

Isn't that just another way of saying 'fuck the rules' though?

I think you might be taking the post a little bit more seriously than I intended...

Haha, well perhaps, but the reality of all of this stuff is that it's very hard to tell what's serious, what's made up and what's just an absolute joke! :-)

[olaftab]

Here's an idea. We're miles behind on the other top 6 teams for commercial revenue, but all deals have to be on commercial terms to satisfy the Premier League/UEFA. What would happen if say, an entirely unconnected Egyptian company (choosing a territory *completely* at random) was to buy £50m of shirts from us, for selling on in Africa and the middle east. Obviously they'd have to pay the going rate for the shirts. Past that though, we'd have no control over how many they sold or what happened to them next, so if they sat in a warehouse like all those crates at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark gathering dust, then that wouldn't be our fault, surely?

Brilliant. Fancy dropping a line to Wes and Nas?

[tomd2103]

This is from The Times and illustrates the challenge trying to compete….

Highest wage bills in the Premier League
2022-23 season. Starred is 21/22 season.
Man City (59% of turnover)
£422.9m
Liverpool (62%)
£373m
Chelsea (71%)*
£340m
Man Utd (51%)
£331.4m
Arsenal (51%)
£234.7m
Tottenham (47%)*
£209m
Aston Villa (89%)
£194.2m
Newcastle (75%)
£186m

Sorry to go back a couple of pages, but this really highlights the financial gap between the so called 'big six' and the rest of the league.  The fact that Manchester City can have such a massive wage bill and for it to be such a relatively small percentage of their turnover (compared to others) is sobering really.

Chelsea's is also a standout given Stamford Bridge is a similar size, if not smaller than Villa Park.