FFP

[tomd2103]

Maybe I've got my dates wrong but as we have only had two seasons of European football to date, does the rolling three year period include losses incurred before we were even subject to UEFA rules because we weren't taking part in their competitions. If so, surely that's bollocks.

There's a few things here.

It's covered by Articles 93-95 here - https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-Club-Licensing-and-Financial-Sustainability-Regulations-2024/Cost-control-requirements-Online
93.04 confirms it's calendar year not season.
Nothing in there mentions a rolling period, it's entirely based on the year of the failure, it's also means that it's really messy to try to work it out just using the club accounts, even when they're available.
Our punishment is for 2024 so half the season in the conference league and half the season in the champions league, but with no CL prize money to offset the extra costs.

For me that feels pretty punishing for teams that, like us, go from bottom-half, to Europe, to CL in the space of 18months. The rules seem to be setup in a way that makes it very difficult to strengthen the squad in a way that helps a club cope with the extra games, especially if they sneak in unexpectedly. A bit of leeway to have a season or 2 to meet the requirements feels like it should be included.

Would it also be fair to say that Premier League teams might be more susceptible to the rules than teams in other countries as well?  I ask that simply because teams in the Premier League looking to get into European competitions are surely likely to spend more given the calibre of teams competing for those spots?

[Dave]

Maybe I've got my dates wrong but as we have only had two seasons of European football to date, does the rolling three year period include losses incurred before we were even subject to UEFA rules because we weren't taking part in their competitions. If so, surely that's bollocks.

There's a few things here.

It's covered by Articles 93-95 here - https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-Club-Licensing-and-Financial-Sustainability-Regulations-2024/Cost-control-requirements-Online
93.04 confirms it's calendar year not season.
Nothing in there mentions a rolling period, it's entirely based on the year of the failure, it's also means that it's really messy to try to work it out just using the club accounts, even when they're available.
Our punishment is for 2024 so half the season in the conference league and half the season in the champions league, but with no CL prize money to offset the extra costs.

For me that feels pretty punishing for teams that, like us, go from bottom-half, to Europe, to CL in the space of 18months. The rules seem to be setup in a way that makes it very difficult to strengthen the squad in a way that helps a club cope with the extra games, especially if they sneak in unexpectedly. A bit of leeway to have a season or 2 to meet the requirements feels like it should be included.

Would it also be fair to say that Premier League teams might be more susceptible to the rules than teams in other countries as well?  I ask that simply because teams in the Premier League looking to get into European competitions are surely likely to spend more given the calibre of teams competing for those spots?

But by virtue of being in the Premier League in the first place, their revenues will massively outstrip those from other leagues as well. West Ham's revenue for the most recent season was £70m more than Napoli or Roma. Wolves have higher revenues than anyone in Spain apart from Barcelona and the Madrid clubs.

Etc.

[The Edge]

The more I think about it the more I think the best solution is to purchase a piece of Aston Park and get on with building a 65,000 seater stadium with a tunnel underneath for Trinity Road. When Comcast got involved I thought something really big was going to happen. Instead we're extending a stand built in the 70's and repurposing an old factory. We are never going to catch up at this rate. It all seems a bit Doug.

[Drummond]

I think it's anything but Doug. They are investing loads and the whole stadium looks better each year.

We'll be able to build over Trinity Road a little for there for the Holte corner, and that will be good enough.

Redoing the North will mean we don't miss out whilst they're doing it. The Warehouse development is a positive one and the owners are respecting the history that's there.

[ozzjim]

The problem is the new stadiums are built ground up for commercial income, Villa Park just isn't. We need to be at 65,000 plus have the commercial element to get anywhere near the top 4-5 clubs with the stadium.

[ozzjim]

Where did the Heck estimation come from?

Also, I see two percentages being banded around - is it definitely 70% for European compliance? I see 85% mentioned sometimes.

I suppose the biggest issue is our revenue is unlikely to be recurrent

It’s 70% for those in Europe. I think the 85% is the PL SCR for those not playing in Europe (it was basically a concession to get agreement on the 70% and align to UEFA).

A bit of back-of-a-fag-packet maths, but I reckon if you had a Premier League side at 85%, if they unexpectedly qualified then the extra revenues/ prize money from doing better than they had been expected to would likely get them to 70%.

Unless they celebrated by splurging it all on Malen and Asensio of course.

It might, but you are penalised for playing a higher intensity without being able to strengthen, so will, 9/10 struggle to qualify the season after, and that doesn't account for 10-20% wage increases based on CL qualification etc.

[Dave]

Sure. I'm just offering a suggestion as to why the Premier League might have put theirs at 85% rather than bringing it fully in line with UEFA's.

[paul_e]

Sure. I'm just offering a suggestion as to why the Premier League might have put theirs at 85% rather than bringing it fully in line with UEFA's.

I think it's mostly because there's a fair few clubs over 70% so the alternative would force those to sell players to fit the new rules and they're trying to avoid that.

[LeeS]

I totally agree on the need for massive stadium extension. That’s the way to bridge the gap. And we need to do it now before someone else comes along and does it. It could be any club. 30 years ago who would have said it would be Chelsea or City?

Could be Blues…

[Duncan Shaw]

Well Everton have just done it, let's see what that does for them, they have been able to take £300k a week Grealish on loan and paid as much for Dibbling as we managed to sell JJ for, so are they already baking on a much higher turnover?

[Percy McCarthy]

I totally agree on the need for massive stadium extension. That’s the way to bridge the gap. And we need to do it now before someone else comes along and does it. It could be any club. 30 years ago who would have said it would be Chelsea or City?

Could be Blues…

Thing is, ticket prices are set by supply and demand. More seats only pay off if you can charge the same price for them. Could we sell 60,000 at today’s prices? If we have to cut prices to sell extra capacity the investment in the ground is a waste of money.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it, but we have to create demand as well as supply.