FFP

[Percy McCarthy]

In 2024 we were ranked 17th in the Deloitte money league with a revenue of €310m, we should have achieved €400m+ for 2025. That would put us close to the top 10.

We were 18th. Broadcast was €215m, commercial €43m, and matchday income €52m.

Matchday income has doubled since the 2022 figures, which is still lagging behind our competitors, and commercial growth was unspectacular in that period.

Obviously, the next set of figures from Deloitte should show sharp increases in all three departments (CL), followed by a drop in the ones after that (no CL).

Our closest PL rivals (West Ham & Newcastle), we’re similar to in terms of TV money and matchday income, but they beat us comfortably on commercial income.

Sorry, just perusing this link having searched it as you piqued my interest:

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting-financial/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html

If we take Heck at his word, and going on today’s exchange rate, turnover went up by €107m last season, and that’s taking his lower estimate (£360m).

[London Villan]

Another question about FFP is, where would we have been without selling Duran?

[Sexual Ealing]

We'd be waving him goodbye on his journey to Newcastle.

[OCD]

Let's not kid ourselves, it's all been about pulling up the drawbridge to stop others coming in and threatening the status quo.

[Percy McCarthy]

Let's not kid ourselves, it's all been about pulling up the drawbridge to stop others coming in and threatening the status quo.

It’s a double-edged sword. For the red cartel it’s also about them shitting themselves about Chelsea, then Man City, then Newcastle. For UEFA, on one hand they don’t want clubs running away from fan-owned clubs in Germany, and on the other they don’t want clubs running away to a European Super League.

[Percy McCarthy]

Another question about FFP is, where would we have been without selling Duran?

Where we badly lag behind clubs in the top ten of that Deloitte list is commercial income. Unless and until we sort that out we need to use player trading as the fourth revenue stream.

[paul_e]

Another question about FFP is, where would we have been without selling Duran?

Premier League FFP/PSR - probably fine, we were already pretty much breaking even on transfers and had a £100m rise in income.
UEFA SCR - We'd just have not signed 1 of Rashford or Asensio because the profit from the sale has very little impact on how it's calculated.

I don't think either of them are particularly big concerns this year either (UEFA is tighter than PL though). The restrictions from our conference league season are what's screwing us, which is where things show how poor the rules are. We're heavily limited in what we can do for 3 years because we over-achieved in Emery's first, incomplete, season and it meant we went into Europe earlier than planned and without a squad suited to it, that meant big(ish) spending for a 2nd year running which, along with some changes to how we handled our accounts, made for a rough 18 months.

I suspect the reason we're taking the restrictions so  seriously is that there is an option in there for us to achieve the 3rd year position early and end the restrictions after 1 year:

The sporting restriction is foreseen as follows:
• It unconditionally applies in the 2025/26 season;
• It conditionally applies in the 2026/27 season, if the Club has a Football Earnings deficit in the reporting period 2025;
• It conditionally applies in the 2027/28 season, if the Club exceeds the 2026 Target;
and
• It conditionally applies in the 2028/29 season if the Club exceeds the Final Target by less than EUR 20 million.

I wouldn't be shocked if our thinking is the rattle off all the conditional restrictions as quickly as possible so we can get back to more 'normal' operation for next year, without having to worry about how we'll register players for our next European campaign.

[tomd2103]

Another question about FFP is, where would we have been without selling Duran?

Where we badly lag behind clubs in the top ten of that Deloitte list is commercial income. Unless and until we sort that out we need to use player trading as the fourth revenue stream.

How do we realistically do it though?  Dortmund are the ones who appear high on the list who it could be argued aren't really a massive global brand (well compared to the others on there), so it would be interesting to see how they achieve that.  If having an 80,000 stadium plays a big part of that, then the answer in terns of what we need to do is pretty clear. 

[Dave]

It's not all doom and gloom, but that still doesn't make it 'fair'.

But what we seem to be asking for wouldn't make it "fair" either. Just unfair in a way that helps us rather hindering us

Ask a Brentford or Palace fan whether giving a couple more teams the leeway to spend another half a billion each on their squads would make the league more fair or not.

I'm not convinced it makes it less fair than the current which is basically you could spend what you like to buy success until 2015 or so, the cartel 6 didn't like it and these rules got voted in. There has to be a lever whereby ambition can be matched with growth to bridge that gap, or we are essentially accepting that the top 6 because of historic size and current revenue are now untouchable.

But with respect, I think it's only an argument that is being made because it's the precise set of circumstances that is hindering us, rather than any noble ideas of fairness.

That certain clubs have used the last thirty years to build up size, popularity and revenues as a result of their successful brand, meaning they create a mini-monopoly that is hard to break into is definitely true.

And if certain other clubs decided that the authorities should step in and make it harder for them, or easier for others in attempt to bridge that gap in the name of fairness and sporting integrity is definitely an argument that has merit.

Obviously what I'm describing though is Premier League clubs versus the rest of Europe.

Would we all applaud UEFA if the other European leagues asked them to set the rules so that it's easier for them and harder for us? Or do they just accept that Premier League clubs "because of historic size and current revenue are now untouchable"?

If we wouldn't support that, what's the difference between that and what we're complaining about?

[Toronto Villa]

The thing that many are struggling with is that it’s not those clubs that have built up their brand, reputation, trophy cabinets through what they’ve mainly achieved on the pitch. Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal for example all were strong sides in the past thirty or so years before the commercial explosion. And they thrived through it all. It’s the clubs who had no prior success to speak of that were bankrolled by the likes of Mansour or Abramovich that propelled to the elite. UEFA/PL don’t want to see that anymore but in doing so, it stops owners of other clubs bridging the gap with funding outside of football. If you cannot bridge the gap then you don’t get the best players. If you don’t get the best players or pay the best wages then you don’t win. If you don’t win you don’t increase commercial revenues. And so it repeats forever. The sides who already got there will stay there. And the rest of us can only watch, trade, sell our best, and buy/loan the scraps off the better sides. This isn’t about us but any other club looking to break in.

[paul_e]

The thing that many are struggling with is that it’s not those clubs that have built up their brand, reputation, trophy cabinets through what they’ve mainly achieved on the pitch. Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal for example all were strong sides in the past thirty or so years before the commercial explosion. And they thrived through it all. It’s the clubs who had no prior success to speak of that were bankrolled by the likes of Mansour or Abramovich that propelled to the elite. UEFA/PL don’t want to see that anymore but in doing so, it stops owners of other clubs bridging the gap with funding outside of football. If you cannot bridge the gap then you don’t get the best players. If you don’t get the best players or pay the best wages then you don’t win. If you don’t win you don’t increase commercial revenues. And so it repeats forever. The sides who already got there will stay there. And the rest of us can only watch, trade, sell our best, and buy/loan the scraps off the better sides. This isn’t about us but any other club looking to break in.

I agree with all of this but it's still not, in my opinion, the heart of the real problem. The real problem is that the system as it exists now encourages teams to gather young players to sell for profit rather than to build their team around. Even clubs like Brentford and Brighton who buy low and sell high fall into the same problem, they buy players in the hope of catching a golden goose as much as in wanting those players to be good for them. All too much of what clubs are doing and why they're doing it comes back to finance first ahead of sporting performance.

I don't have an easy answer for how to fix it but better incentives around academy graduates, more consideration for debt levels and less emphasis on commercial revenue would all need to be a big part of any solution for me to like it.

[Toronto Villa]

And to add the thing that sticks most in people’s throats right now is Man City. Just how did they grow their commercial revenues as quickly as they did? What kind of deals did they do and who with to get so far so quickly? Charges that are wide ranging and much to do with this very topic. They not only caught up very quickly but sprinted ahead of everyone in a few short years.

[paul_e]

And to add the thing that sticks most in people’s throats right now is Man City. Just how did they grow their commercial revenues as quickly as they did? What kind of deals did they do and who with to get so far so quickly. Charges that are wide ranging and much to do with this very topic. They not only caught be but sprinted ahead of everyone in a few short years.

and the other, other thing is that there is a big element of subjectiveness creeping in as well. Commercial deals have to represent 'fair value', so clubs like Man Utd can have an official leaf blower partner giving them £20m a season but the same company offering the same deal to, for example, Sunderland would be considered unreasonable. Same with transfer fees, one thing we got pinged for in the UEFA ruling was inflated fees, and yet every summer we see Man City and Chelsea selling kids with a handful of first team appearances for huge fees and it being fine because clearly their academy graduates are worth more.

[john2710]

You can now see why the Premier League were so relaxed about the Saudi's takeover of Newcastle. Because no matter how well they're run, the odds are stacked against them & if they somehow overcome the odds, the rules will be changed.

[tomd2103]

If you cannot bridge the gap then you don’t get the best players. If you don’t get the best players or pay the best wages then you don’t win. If you don’t win you don’t increase commercial revenues. And so it repeats forever. The sides who already got there will stay there. And the rest of us can only watch, trade, sell our best, and buy/loan the scraps off the better sides. This isn’t about us but any other club looking to break in.

This is it in a nutshell.  Add to that a media who perpetuate the idea of a "top six" and immediately try and unsettle any player who shows some form outside those clubs by linking them with a move to one of them.