FFP

[tomd2103]

Under FFP it seems to me that the debt attached to a stadium is valued differently compared to the debt attached to wages/transfers i.e. it can be deducted from losses. Furthermore the extra income the stadium provides gives extra headroom to invest more in players, so it’s a decent multiplier.

It doesn't work like that at all. You can obviously spend what you like on a stadium without it affecting FFP, but that doesn't affect the stuff that does, like revenue, wages and amortisation.

I might have got this badly wrong (apologies if that is the xase), but has the new stadium had that much of an impact for Spurs if they have lost £80m +?  It seems that it is that £72m depreciation that is keeping them out of FFP trouble, as opposed to increased revenue? 

As an aside, it said on the radio earlier that this is the first time in 14 years that they had not been in European competition. 

Surely the answer to that is they'd have lost much more money without the extra revenue of the new stadium. That's going to be an absolute game changer for them.

And the no European competition thing won't have any accounts impact until next year's.

Suppose the point I was trying to make was that even with the new stadium, they are still making big losses and need that £72m a year to keep them on the right side of FFP. 

The Europe thing hadn't really got anything to do with FFP, just that I was surprised to hear they had been in Europe that long.

[Risso]

Interest payments must effect FFP though?  I think the point people are trying to make is that if you spend money on a new stadium and increase your revenue as a result then its a good move from an FFP perspective because the additional revenue created helps FFP the most of the costs you sunk into achieving that increased revenue arent counted against it. 

Interest payments for loans directly used on a new stand or stadium would be deducted from FFP costs, so don't affect FFP. Everton tried to cloud the issue when they were in the dock by saying that the Premier League hadn't deducted interest on loans for the new stadium. What actually happened was that the loans from the owner for the ground development were interest free, and commercial loans they had from banks etc (which had explicit instructions that they couldn't be used for the stadium) were what the interest was actually charged on. This was working capital that went on normal day to day stuff like trabsfers and wages etc, so the PL rightly told them to bugger off.

As much as there is a point to FFP, that point is that expenditure on stuff for the long term benefit of the club like stadium work and youth development is encouraged by the authorities. Simply going out and spending gazillions on players and wages, isn't. Taking Spurs as an example, a massive new stadium with 20,000 extra seats is obviously going to stand them in much better stead in the future than say, giving x player £200,000 a week for 5 years.

[Brazilian Villain]

Suppose the point I was trying to make was that even with the new stadium, they are still making big losses and need that £72m a year to keep them on the right side of FFP. 

The point is that they wouldn't have been making big losses if there wasn't that depreciation charge of £72m hitting their P&L each year.

[Risso]

It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.

I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.

I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.

Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.

So far though, Comcast are rumoured to have put £100m in. That's not going to pay for a new stand, much less an entire new stadium. Obviously they could invest more or provide new loans or whatever in the future, but a new stadium is terms of building is going to be what, a minimum of 5 - 6 years away. You'd have to identify a site, have a public consultation, have plans drawn up, gain planning permission and compulsory purchase any houses/businesses who don't want to sell up before you even stick a spade in the ground. What are they going to be doing in the mean time?

[chrisw1]

It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.

I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.

I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.

Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.

Don't you think our new head of Strategy and Analytics actually saying the North Stand had been cancelled because of a lack of confidence in the demand for GA+ tickets is a bigger clue?

I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).

Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.

[pauliewalnuts]

It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.

I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.

I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.

Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.

So far though, Comcast are rumoured to have put £100m in. That's not going to pay for a new stand, much less an entire new stadium. Obviously they could invest more or provide new loans or whatever in the future, but a new stadium is terms of building is going to be what, a minimum of 5 - 6 years away. You'd have to identify a site, have a public consultation, have plans drawn up, gain planning permission and compulsory purchase any houses/businesses who don't want to sell up before you even stick a spade in the ground. What are they going to be doing in the mean time?

Oh, I get that, but in terms of what they do in the meantime - exactly what Heck said, somehow shoe-horn another 3k seats in, at least to address the number of seats problem.

The question would be - even if a new stadium is 5-6 years away, would it make sense to spend 120m or whatever it is on a stand that'll be getting demolished? Of course it wouldn't.

As for Comcast, yes, that 100m is not going to scratch the surface, one assumes, but then again, leaving the entire ground question to one side - what exactly have they put 100m in for?

Our financial problems don't seem to be about finding the money, the most pressing one is PSR and obviously, Comcast buying in isn't going to do much to change that.

So what's in it for them?

We pretty much all agree the club is largely hamstrung - at least in terms of making a big jump - on the revenues front with the current set up. Betano and Adidas will make a difference, yes, but the shirt sponsor going from 8m a year to 20m, whilst very helpful, is not game changing.

Whatever the plan is, it can not be to just stay where we are and change nothing.

[Villan82]

Whatever the plan is, it can not be to just stay where we are and change nothing

See, I think the plan could well be to copy Chelsea. Maximise a 40k ground for premium.

All we have to go on is the shift that accompanied Heck's appointment.

Before he came we had big plans for a badge that was a clean break with the Lerner badge and a brand new North Stand. Since he came we have apparently decided to evolve the Lerner badge and we have cancelled the redevelopment. It has gone from bold change to minimal change on a couple of fronts and it sort of dampened the vision of a club on the move.

Of course you may well be correct butI wouldn't get my hopes up to be honest.

[curiousorange]

I wouldn't be surprised if news of a new ground comes out really quickly in the summer. We're too deep into our chase for CL/UECL to release it now but I don't think what the plans are can drag on into the new season.

[Sexual Ealing]

It means investing in bigger and better facilities is a no-brainer. Which makes it all the more mystifying why we appear to have slammed the brakes on in that department.

I think it's because we've realised spunking 120m on a new north stand isn't going to make enough difference, and the only way we can do that is to build a new ground.

I know I keep saying this, but the clues are all there. Heck and his "it's not just about one stand, it's about improving things for all fans" comment in his canning-it statement. Altairos. Pointing out the poor public infrastructure. Not even building Villa Live.

Honestly, I reckon all the clues are there.

Don't you think our new head of Strategy and Analytics actually saying the North Stand had been cancelled because of a lack of confidence in the demand for GA+ tickets is a bigger clue?

I went to a networking event a couple of weeks ago at Villa and the speaker was the club's new head of Strategy and Analytics. This role is looking at the non-playing-side data, amongst other things, doing what supermarkets do with your data through loyalty cards and how they profile your habits).

Anyway... he made some interesting points about measuring the average spend of supporters in the ground, what they spend on merch and food, the different trends and patterns. But importantly about whether the figures stacked up for the new stand - based on the spending power of current fans that this (alongside 1/3 of the ground being affected, transport etc) was one of the reasons it was stopped. Basically, there isn't enough demand (atm) to justify an increase of 2000-3000 premium seats.

I wouldn't worry too much about what somebody says at a conference. If there are plans, and they don't want to release them for whatever reason, it's not going to come out at an industry event way ahead of time.

[Risso]

It does chime with the overall message so far though.

[Sexual Ealing]

I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.

[Risso]

I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.

Oh I think it is too. My first choice woud be a sparkly brand new stadium somewhere more central. Failing that, a major revamp of Villa Park. The very worst option would be some sort of miserable compromise with some extra seats shoehorned in and some badly thought out and executed GA+ shite, along the lines of Terrace View and Lower Grounds. I think Heck's communication skills are pathetic, but surely he must see what needs to be done.

[Villan82]

I'm with Paulie. Something is afoot.

If you are both correct then they are planning something quite divisive.

Goodison Park is falling apart. White Hart Lane couldn't really be expanded from what it was. We don't have that. We absolutely could improve and expand Villa Park. We already had the plan to achieve that.

[DB]

I wouldn't be surprised if news of a new ground comes out really quickly in the summer. We're too deep into our chase for CL/UECL to release it now but I don't think what the plans are can drag on into the new season.

I said this a few weeks back, something is coming…

[curiousorange]

I mean, it could be possible that we're making a story out of nothing. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all. But it can't go from new stand to nothing and that'll be it for the foreseeable. I just hope Risso isn't right about a crap compromise solution.