FFP

[paul_e]

While it's easy to say we'll have a new sponsor next season and that'll help, I can't help thinking the ban on gambling companies on front of shirt sponsors could water down any amount we get.

Not going to quote the whole thing but this bit is worth a reply. The current £20m was signed before we had a UCL QF and a Europa League R16 (as it stands) under our belts and when our challenge towards the top of the league could easily have been a flash in the pan, rather than 4 seasons in a row. That means the 'market rate' should be at least £30m by any measure. If we can't get that from anyone else there's absolutely nothing to stop us adding a Sawaris/Edens/Atairos company on there for that sort of figure.

Add to that other changes and I can see our commercial revenue taking a fair jump next year. I'd be surprised if we don't, at the very least, overtake Stuttgart in that list.

It's a fair point about when the deal was done, Paul, I just can't help thinking the gambling sponsor ban will adversely affect the values of new deals. Now it could be the next FoS sponsor pays £30m a season, I just think without the gambling ban it might be above that purely because with the betting ban there will be less companies bidding for the Fos deal.

Yes but that doesn't matter, we have a market value we can justify in the £30-40m range so Wes or Nas could sponsor us for that much if we can't find anyone willing to offer it. Same for a sleeve sponsor, next time it renews we get £7-8m elsewhere or we do it ourselves. Both of those would mean we go somewhere around double the value. Add to that with a few odd deals here and there (Fortress to sponsor the warehouse for a couple of mill a year for example) and it's not impossible to think we could be looking at a 30% bump on the current commercial income. The recent deal with the Egyptian resort is a big hint towards where things can go if we aren't getting value from elsewhere.

All that said I think there's a decent chance that we end up just increasing the links with Xapo Bank and them taking over the shirt sponsor deal. Whether Crypto is a better partner than gambling is questionable but that's for other people to worry about.

[Chris Harte]

While it's easy to say we'll have a new sponsor next season and that'll help, I can't help thinking the ban on gambling companies on front of shirt sponsors could water down any amount we get.

Not going to quote the whole thing but this bit is worth a reply. The current £20m was signed before we had a UCL QF and a Europa League R16 (as it stands) under our belts and when our challenge towards the top of the league could easily have been a flash in the pan, rather than 4 seasons in a row. That means the 'market rate' should be at least £30m by any measure. If we can't get that from anyone else there's absolutely nothing to stop us adding a Sawaris/Edens/Atairos company on there for that sort of figure.

Add to that other changes and I can see our commercial revenue taking a fair jump next year. I'd be surprised if we don't, at the very least, overtake Stuttgart in that list.

It's a fair point about when the deal was done, Paul, I just can't help thinking the gambling sponsor ban will adversely affect the values of new deals. Now it could be the next FoS sponsor pays £30m a season, I just think without the gambling ban it might be above that purely because with the betting ban there will be less companies bidding for the Fos deal.

Yes but that doesn't matter, we have a market value we can justify in the £30-40m range so Wes or Nas could sponsor us for that much if we can't find anyone willing to offer it. Same for a sleeve sponsor, next time it renews we get £7-8m elsewhere or we do it ourselves. Both of those would mean we go somewhere around double the value. Add to that with a few odd deals here and there (Fortress to sponsor the warehouse for a couple of mill a year for example) and it's not impossible to think we could be looking at a 30% bump on the current commercial income. The recent deal with the Egyptian resort is a big hint towards where things can go if we aren't getting value from elsewhere.

All that said I think there's a decent chance that we end up just increasing the links with Xapo Bank and them taking over the shirt sponsor deal. Whether Crypto is a better partner than gambling is questionable but that's for other people to worry about.

I don't disagree with anything you've written there, and I'd not previously considered Wes and Nas just sponsoring us themselves.

[Chris Harte]

Seems that the sleeve deal with Trade Nation is up at the end of this season.

[Percy McCarthy]

Explain to me how the sale of the Chelsea ladies team for £200m gets through this fair value test? It has £12m income and £20m costs (in the period of sale), and attendances less than 10,000.

Because they sold 10% of it to an outside investor for £20m. That’s a pretty compelling case.

[Percy McCarthy]

Every club in that list with the exception of Benfica (19th) & West Ham (20th) have commercial revenues far in excess of our own. Our own figure of €83m is dwarfed by next highest Stuttgart (€106m) and then Newcastle at €139m.

While it's easy to say we'll have a new sponsor next season and that'll help, I can't help thinking the ban on gambling companies on front of shirt sponsors could water down any amount we get.

Where I do think there is room for improvement is the sleeve sponsor. I looked into this previously and found that most Premier League clubs had a sleeve sponsor who's value was between a third and a fifth of the front of shirt sponsor. Villa's sleeve sponsor reportedly pays a tenth of the amount Betano currently do. That said, I'm unclear on when the sleeve sponsor contract is up for renewal.

Other information.
Newcastle Front of Shirt - Sela £25m
Newcastle Sleeve - Noon £7.5m (30% of Fos)
Tottenham Front of Shirt - AIA £40m
Tottenham Sleeve - Kraken £10m (25% of Fos)
Villa Front of Shirt - Betano £20m
Villa Sleeve - Trade Nation £2m (10% of Fos)

The gambling ban will hopefully push bookies onto the sleeves, where they’re not banned.

[Chris Harte]

The gambling ban will hopefully push bookies onto the sleeves, where they’re not banned.

I do find it odd that the ban doesn't completely remove betting logos from kits.

On the broader subject of growing commercial revenue, with no pubs near to VP welcoming away fans, maybe there needs to be an away beer hall to complement the Warehouse, perhaps close to the away coach parking.

And I'm still convinced there will be a hotel at some point.

[Percy McCarthy]

The gambling ban will hopefully push bookies onto the sleeves, where they’re not banned.

I do find it odd that the ban doesn't completely remove betting logos from kits.

On the broader subject of growing commercial revenue, with no pubs near to VP welcoming away fans, maybe there needs to be an away beer hall to complement the Warehouse, perhaps close to the away coach parking.

And I'm still convinced there will be a hotel at some point.

The Witton Arms, the Aston Hotel with an extension into the Birmingham Settlement building next door, or the Majestic would be perfect for that (away fans). Back in Doug’s day we had planning permission for an hotel bolted onto the back of Holte Hotel didn’t we? I saw the renders on X the other day.

We could have hotels at either end of the ground, and one is mentioned in the local growth plan which is a few pages back in the VP development thread.

[Chris Harte]

The gambling ban will hopefully push bookies onto the sleeves, where they’re not banned.

I do find it odd that the ban doesn't completely remove betting logos from kits.

On the broader subject of growing commercial revenue, with no pubs near to VP welcoming away fans, maybe there needs to be an away beer hall to complement the Warehouse, perhaps close to the away coach parking.

And I'm still convinced there will be a hotel at some point.

The Witton Arms, the Aston Hotel with an extension into the Birmingham Settlement building next door, or the Majestic would be perfect for that (away fans). Back in Doug’s day we had planning permission for an hotel bolted onto the back of Holte Hotel didn’t we? I saw the renders on X the other day.

We could have hotels at either end of the ground, and one is mentioned in the local growth plan which is a few pages back in the VP development thread.

If my memory isn't playing tricks its not that long since the Witton Arms was split half and half, home and away.

Think Doug's hotel plan (which was possibly too far ahead of it's time) was going to back onto the North Stand. Again, I could be mistaken.

[Dante Lavelli]

The majestic and the building across the road are stunning and should be integral to any development of the area.  Hopefully by us.

An away fans pub with museum vibes could work well.  It'd be a classy way to show some hospitality to the away fans whilst also enlightening them on our illustrious past.  The museum part could be bolted on to the stadium tours too.

[Percy McCarthy]

First time I’ve heard anyone on national media (Mark McAdam I think his name is), calling it “the big six or the big eight” on Sky Sports News. I prefer “the great eight” but it’s progress. Be good if the ninth biggest turnover club, West Ham, get relegated.

It’s about time Comcast Spectator told their little British TV company to start bigging up the football club they indirectly own a third of. A nice big sponsorship wouldn’t go amiss either.

[Crown Hill]

I found this a helpful explainer.

[Percy McCarthy]

^^ Yeah, he’s done some very informative videos. I follow him on TikTok but I rarely, if ever, go on it these days.

[Matt C]

Excellent explainer. A few football writers and “expert” pundits could do with watching it.

[Percy McCarthy]

Excellent explainer. A few football writers and “expert” pundits could do with watching it.

Not looking forward to our collection of podcasters discussing the financial results when they’re short of normal content.

[Dante Lavelli]

I found this a helpful explainer.

How old is this? The turnover number quoted sounds low compared to the Deloitte numbers released this week.

Edit - just checked, slightly different but close enough for the overall point to be valid.