FFP

[eamonn]

Re front of shirt sponsors - why do Chelsea continue not to have one when they've been the club whose finances, alongside ours, are the most-monitored by UEFA currently? If they're unsatisfied with what brands are offering them, why not get their owners other companies to sponsor them like Paul suggest for us?

[Crown Hill]

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.

It’s based on the exact Deloitte numbers that’s what he’s responded to. It was made two days ago after they came out. There is some added analysis on possible football related expenditure and historic numbers as well.

There’s no way this guy would use the wrong numbers. He’s the most informed Villa supporter I’ve read or seen on this.

[Crown Hill]

Re front of shirt sponsors - why do Chelsea continue not to have one when they've been the club whose finances, alongside ours, are the most-monitored by UEFA currently? If they're unsatisfied with what brands are offering them, why not get their owners other companies to sponsor them like Paul suggest for us?

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6906556/2026/01/23/chelsea-premier-league-no-shirt-sponsor-why/

[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.

It’s based on the exact Deloitte numbers that’s what he’s responded to. It was made two days ago after they came out. There is some added analysis on possible football related expenditure and historic numbers as well.

There’s no way this guy would use the wrong numbers. He’s the most informed Villa supporter I’ve read or seen on this.

The number he uses is £365m v £378m reported by the bbc. Admittedly he calls it operating revenue not revenue so I figure that is significant as he clearly knows his onions.

[tomd2103]

I'm not sure how sustainable a model that relies on us qualifying for the Champions League every year is.  I've said it before and I know it doesn't work like this, but it's almost not worth playing in the Conference and Europa Leagues when UEFAs financial rules are so prohibiting. 

[Dante Lavelli]

I'm not sure how sustainable a model that relies on us qualifying for the Champions League every year is.  I've said it before and I know it doesn't work like this, but it's almost not worth playing in the Conference and Europa Leagues when UEFAs financial rules are so prohibiting. 

I think the PL rules will be more aligned from next season.  having the revenue it provides will be important.

Agree completely that CL money should be seen as a bonus rather than the basis for our planning. 

[PeterWithe]

That's not great news is it, it will be very difficult to keep sponsorships growing when we are having to sell players capable of contributing to the kind of squad sponsors want to be associated with.

It's a shit business.

[Goldenballs]

Can't we have The Warehouse named the 'Visit Egypt' Warehouse for 10 years and bag ourselves a sweet profit?

Can we sell naming rights for the North Stand? The 'Vodafone' stand and let them plaster their name on top?

[Tuscans]

Be interested to know how much the Nassef got out of his bro for the training gear sponsor. I suppose we won't get an idea of that until the accounts the year after come out. Also keen to see what deal Calvo can do for the shirt sponsor next season after the Betano one ends. Something a lot more than the £20m a year would go down a treat.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Can't we have The Warehouse named the 'Visit Egypt' Warehouse for 10 years and bag ourselves a sweet profit?

Can we sell naming rights for the North Stand? The 'Vodafone' stand and let them plaster their name on top?

The Witton Lane Stand is long overdue a renaming. You know that if it had been called the 'Ron Saunders Stand' Ellis would have renamed it within days. Plus he would have liked the extra revenue, so why not?

[Rigadon]

 When people talk down the impact Villa ‘flying under the media radar’ has perhaps they underestimate how a bigger profile boosts income.  Shirt sponsor deals according to a quick google:

Manchester City: Etihad Airways (~£67.5m)
Manchester United: Snapdragon (~£60m)
Liverpool: Standard Chartered (~£50m)
Arsenal: Emirates (~£50m)
Tottenham Hotspur: AIA (~£40m)
Newcastle United: Sela (~£25m)

So spurs getting double the income comes in handy when outdoing rivals for midfielders.  I know it’s not that straightforward, but it does indicate that media attention makes inflated commercial deals easier.

[Rigadon]

And Man City with c.25% more than Liverpool? Hmm. 

[Tuscans]

Puma ready to do a billion pound deal with City over the next 10 years. Our Adidas deal, about £17m a year.

[Chris Harte]

You'd think with all those charges hanging over City that businesses would be cautious about throwing large sums of money at them.

Unless, of course, they already know the overcome, or there are seriously robust clauses included.

[PaulWinch again]

Can someone explain where we are on the UEFA condition for registering any new players for Europe, in terms of needing a positive net transfer spend?

I had thought it was an overarching spend point? I.e. it’s not just about players we would want to add.

I can’t work out why we would be ok on this, unless it doesn’t apply now? But I thought it was a condition across the season.