FFP

[pauliewalnuts]

So I take it this would still stop clubs having Stadium sponsorship at £50 million a year to up their  turnover

That one was closed off a few years ago.

[DB]

If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?

But Newcastle already have 52k seats and are positioned far better than us to drive revenue.

Frankly if these new rules operate how I think they do, it's just as bad as the Superleague proposals in terms of pulling up the ladder.

I am comparing to the current top teams. Newcastle owners may be itching to spend more than they currently can...which, as you say is bigger than ours.

[tomd2103]

Back from twitter. Maguire says it’s good for the greedy 6, bad for Villa and Newcastle.

Someone quoted the below figures a few pages back and if they are correct then it isn't difficult to see exactly what these proposed P&S rules would mean:

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

[chrisw1]

The reality of the new system (copied from a twitter post)

Let me give an example here to clear it up for everyone, Man Utd, over £1b of debt, but with their £648m revenue last year they can spend £550m under the new rules on wages and transfers, if Ipswich get promoted their revenue will be around £30m for this season plus tv money

[eamonn]

Presumably Luton's is similar right now?

[olaftab]

If it happens, more pressure to increase revenue. You wonder that Newcastle's state owners will get pissed off their hands are tied and walk away of they can't be successful (by not being able to knock their local rivals in the Gulf of their perch), to a lesser extent our owners too?

I don't think our owners ever intended to do an Abu Dhabi however Saudi's definitely wanted to do that. 

[Rigadon]

It does, on the face of it, appear that if this goes ahead it would be time to concede that 7th (or every now and again 6th) really is the glass ceiling. A step closer to their ‘super league’.

The only practical thing that I can see we’d be able to do would be to relocate from VP into a city centre stadium with a 60k capacity. 

[tomd2103]

It does, on the face of it, appear that if this goes ahead it would be time to concede that 7th (or every now and again 6th) really is the glass ceiling. A step closer to their ‘super league’.

The only practical thing that I can see we’d be able to do would be to relocate from VP into a city centre stadium with a 60k capacity.

Yeah, we would be looking at having to significantly increase our revenue if we wanted to take that next step on a longer term.  I think our revenue will have increased this season and will continue to do so over the next few, but it won't be the kind of figures that will close the gap with those other clubs.

That said, we have been able to compete with them under Unai Emery so far, but if it does go ahead then we will be in a position again where we can be picked off by those clubs with greater finances. 

It is all starting to point towards a very big dilemma facing the club and the fanbase really if we do want to take that next step.

[Percy McCarthy]

^^ Yep, need a new ground or complete rebuild.

[VILLA MOLE]

Could clubs not swallow up businesses to make them look more profitable under the football club banner ?

[Brazilian Villain]

Yet another reason to hate Chelsea. https://twitter.com/Matt_Law_DT/status/1767529252004548942

[Somniloquism]

Someone quoted the below figures a few pages back and if they are correct then it isn't difficult to see exactly what these proposed P&S rules would mean:

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

No surprise that the ones with low wage to turnover are all the ones who have played in the Chumps league multiple times over the past 20 years. It is why we need to ensure we keep building for it season after season. Although still a surprise that Tottenham's is only £15 mil higher considering the players that they have been getting in. I'm assuming they have some big bonus system instead which I don't know if it is included in the wages figures. 

[AV82EC]

Someone quoted the below figures a few pages back and if they are correct then it isn't difficult to see exactly what these proposed P&S rules would mean:

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

No surprise that the ones with low wage to turnover are all the ones who have played in the Chumps league multiple times over the past 20 years. It is why we need to ensure we keep building for it season after season. Although still a surprise that Tottenham's is only £15 mil higher considering the players that they have been getting in. I'm assuming they have some big bonus system instead which I don't know if it is included in the wages figures.

Let’s not do this, let’s really really not do this…..

[Somniloquism]

Damn foiled.....

[Rigadon]

It does, on the face of it, appear that if this goes ahead it would be time to concede that 7th (or every now and again 6th) really is the glass ceiling. A step closer to their ‘super league’.

The only practical thing that I can see we’d be able to do would be to relocate from VP into a city centre stadium with a 60k capacity.

Yeah, we would be looking at having to significantly increase our revenue if we wanted to take that next step on a longer term.  I think our revenue will have increased this season and will continue to do so over the next few, but it won't be the kind of figures that will close the gap with those other clubs.

That said, we have been able to compete with them under Unai Emery so far, but if it does go ahead then we will be in a position again where we can be picked off by those clubs with greater finances. 

It is all starting to point towards a very big dilemma facing the club and the fanbase really if we do want to take that next step.

And one that might explain the recent u-turn on the north stand - I'd be surprised if clubs are finding out ab out this when we are.  A part of me thinks that a move from VP might be the end for me as a match going fan (nobody would give a flying fuck, and wouldn't even if I were a ST holder which I haven't been for many many years), and another thinks it's the only way we can compete.  I suppose it comes down to what's more important: heritage and 150 years of history and family shared experience, or competing for winning stuff, which is the DNA of a grand old institution such as Aston Villa. 

My mind is changeable I suppose.