FFP

[Beard82]

Its a bit mad really - that we could easily have been 70m of if a referee had done there job properly.  And that means we have to most likely sell Rogers rather than take the lose - when Man Utd debt has increased to 1.3bn and Chelsea lost half a billion.   Both will be in for him most likely.

[Villa in Denmark]

The Man City commercial income figure looks dodgy. Wouldn't be like them to fiddle the books though.

Joking aside, does the average global glory hunter wear a Citeh shirt now?

Not over here so much. They're behind Liverpool, ManUre, Chelsea and probably Arsenal.  On  personal level I know as many Sheffield Utd "fans" as Cheating Fuckers FC fans. (1 each.)

[Tuscans]

Not Villa but in comparison....

"Chelsea booked the highest pre-tax loss in English football history in the 2024-25 season, per data released today by UEFA.

The European Club Finance and Investment Landscape report, issued annually by the governing body, includes the 10 clubs with the highest losses in a given season.

The west London outfit topped — or bottomed — that cohort last season, but it is the scale of Chelsea’s loss which stands out.

In their third full season under the ownership of a consortium headed by Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly, the club booked a €407million (£342m) pre-tax deficit."

[Smithy]

Was reading an article on the BBC earlier about Manchester United's debt now rising to £1.3bn which linked to some other articles.  One of them broke down the Deloitte money table in to categories of match day, broadcast and commercial income.  In terms of English clubs, it was (in Euros):

Liverpool - 149,800 / 320,700 / 365,700
Man City - 89,300 / 331,500 / 408,400
Arsenal - 183,100 / 324,600 / 314,000
Man Utd - 190,700 / 205,800 / 396,600
Spurs - 150,500 / 192,400 / 329,700
Chelsea - 103,200 / 241,800 / 239,000

Aston Villa - 80,200 / 286,700 / 83,300

Newcastle - 67,600 / 191,600 / 139,200

West Ham - 47,100 / 157,500 / 71,400

Inter Milan - 108,000 / 277,000 / 152,500
Bor Dortmund - 94,900 / 227,200 / 209,200
Atl Madrid - 79,900 / 218,600 / 156,000

Some interesting comparisons there as you've got the so called 'Big Six', Newcastle who are probably about on a par with us and then West Ham who are obviously the highest of the rest of the Premier League.  The things that stand out for me when comparing us with Newcastle and West Ham is the massive difference in broadcast income that the Champions League brings.  Interesting that it also put us ahead of Man Utd, Chelsea and Spurs in that area, and that the double whammy of Premier League and Champions League put us above the 3 European sides directly above us. 

Again presuming that being in the Champions League put our matchday revenue ahead of Newcastle and West Ham, but we were considerably behind the English clubs in the top ten on the list (Man City's figures looks low though??).  It's the commercial figure that is the real eye opener and that some of the Premier League clubs earn nearly 5 times what we do in that area.  How do they manage that and that just seems a massive gap to get anywhere remotely near bridging.  The figures for Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and PSG are even more eye-watering.
 

You can fix match day and broadcasting revenue relatively quickly - with on-field success.  But commercial revenue takes time, unfortunately.  Everyone above us has had a good decade (or more) headstart on us, in building massive commercial operations around teams that have been delivering regular "success" (even if that success isn't silverwear, it means finishing at the top end of the league and regular European football - all of which is valuable to sponsors and people wanting to give you money).

People forget that the year we were relegated, Spurs were starting three consecutive years in the champions league, and the riches that delivered to match day and commercial revenue.  The commercial foundations we're trying to build now, they were building a decade ago.

That gap won't be closed in a year or two, unfortunately.  We need 3-5 years of regular European football, finishes in the top 5/6 and hopefully some silverware.  As reported elsewhere, our revenue growth is the highest in the league, it has been phenomenal, but there is a limit to how quickly it CAN grow, and we're probably right at that limit now (or very close to it).

When our 80-ish million a year in commercial revenue is 300-ish million a year, like some of the other top 6 sides, THEN we'll start to compete on a more level playing field, but I'd be surprised if we get there before the ground redevelopment is complete for the 2028 Euros - more likely a year or two after that. Our figures for the 29/30 season should be getting close to the others, all other things being equal.

The real challenge for the next few years, is being able to keep the team competitive, with one hand behind our back, financially speaking, until we can get close to the others commercially.  And Unai is absolutely crucial to that.

[Smithy]

Not Villa but in comparison....

"Chelsea booked the highest pre-tax loss in English football history in the 2024-25 season, per data released today by UEFA.

The European Club Finance and Investment Landscape report, issued annually by the governing body, includes the 10 clubs with the highest losses in a given season.

The west London outfit topped — or bottomed — that cohort last season, but it is the scale of Chelsea’s loss which stands out.

In their third full season under the ownership of a consortium headed by Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly, the club booked a €407million (£342m) pre-tax deficit."

Can someone who understands this better than I do explain how this doesn't cause them domestic PSR issues?  I can understand how ammortising player costs, selling the women's team, and a hotel all help - but given the PSR limit is £100m-ish over 3 years, how does having a year like that not completely bollox you?

[SoccerHQ]

Wow - so were basically selling Rogers in the summer.

We are more likely than not to get CL income so that will cover a fair chunk of a loss. Pretty sad we need CL income most years when that is far from guaranteed as we saw last season.

I would say without question we need to be moving all of Martinez, Digne and Watkins on in the summer. All been excellent servants for us but we've had their best years so for the wages they're on we need to be a bit ruthless and tell their agents to start looking for new clubs.

This is where we'll see how long term the vision really is as it has become very short term in last few years to get in CL just signing short term options like Sancho and Rashford to try to get bursts of form going in the league.

We should comfortably meet the 85% wage ratio for prem but the UEFA one is going to be more of a challenge with our current squad.

[Meanwood Villa]

Isn't banking on CL revenue every season what did for Leeds back in the day?

[SoccerHQ]

Isn't banking on CL revenue every season what did for Leeds back in the day?

Same with Chelsea although even then they had hotels to sell. However they'd have been in massive trouble if Abramovich hadn't come calling when he did.

I think the issue is qualifying for CL isn't the financial gamechanger it was made out to be when we did it in 2024. We hit our targets in making top 8, QFs (if they were genuinely budeting for the final that is insanity) and having huge money spinners against Juve, Bayern and PSG and a year on we're still posting 80m losses.

We need to be doing it four seasons out of five so this season, next season and the one after.

Even if they are complete rubbish on the pitch currently Spurs are in better place financially because they started doing this a decade ago but it is hard to predict what will happen in the future as Rogers might get sold, Emery might leave etc and then we're struggling if competent replacements aren't secured.

[TheToffnar]

Utterly depressing stuff to read. Despise the fact that getting to where we have is no longer about glory, but a financial necessity.

Enough to put anyone off the game, in all honesty.

[SoccerHQ]

What Smithy said above.

Superb stuff.

Spurs are complete rubbish on the pitch currently. And could genuinely get relegated.

However in financial terms they are still comfortably CL. The stuff we're doing now they were doing or exceeding a decade ago. Put the foundations in place to rebuild WHL while we're still just about getting the North Stand redevelopment going.

We are about Conference league in terms of revenue now so improvement compared to five years ago but still a long way to go.

[tomd2103]

Was reading an article on the BBC earlier about Manchester United's debt now rising to £1.3bn which linked to some other articles.  One of them broke down the Deloitte money table in to categories of match day, broadcast and commercial income.  In terms of English clubs, it was (in Euros):

Liverpool - 149,800 / 320,700 / 365,700
Man City - 89,300 / 331,500 / 408,400
Arsenal - 183,100 / 324,600 / 314,000
Man Utd - 190,700 / 205,800 / 396,600
Spurs - 150,500 / 192,400 / 329,700
Chelsea - 103,200 / 241,800 / 239,000

Aston Villa - 80,200 / 286,700 / 83,300

Newcastle - 67,600 / 191,600 / 139,200

West Ham - 47,100 / 157,500 / 71,400

Inter Milan - 108,000 / 277,000 / 152,500
Bor Dortmund - 94,900 / 227,200 / 209,200
Atl Madrid - 79,900 / 218,600 / 156,000

Some interesting comparisons there as you've got the so called 'Big Six', Newcastle who are probably about on a par with us and then West Ham who are obviously the highest of the rest of the Premier League.  The things that stand out for me when comparing us with Newcastle and West Ham is the massive difference in broadcast income that the Champions League brings.  Interesting that it also put us ahead of Man Utd, Chelsea and Spurs in that area, and that the double whammy of Premier League and Champions League put us above the 3 European sides directly above us. 

Again presuming that being in the Champions League put our matchday revenue ahead of Newcastle and West Ham, but we were considerably behind the English clubs in the top ten on the list (Man City's figures looks low though??).  It's the commercial figure that is the real eye opener and that some of the Premier League clubs earn nearly 5 times what we do in that area.  How do they manage that and that just seems a massive gap to get anywhere remotely near bridging.  The figures for Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and PSG are even more eye-watering.
 

When our 80-ish million a year in commercial revenue is 300-ish million a year, like some of the other top 6 sides, THEN we'll start to compete on a more level playing field, but I'd be surprised if we get there before the ground redevelopment is complete for the 2028 Euros - more likely a year or two after that. Our figures for the 29/30 season should be getting close to the others, all other things being equal.

The real challenge for the next few years, is being able to keep the team competitive, with one hand behind our back, financially speaking, until we can get close to the others commercially.  And Unai is absolutely crucial to that.

How do we get from where we are now in terms of commercial earnings to 300m+ which is over 200m more?

[Hookeysmith]

And everyone laughed at Arsenal having an open top bus parade each time they won fuck all but got 4th place and Champions league - they had that for almost 20+ years in a row.

As for the Red Filth (and it chokes me to say this) but it is not a debt of £1.3B as we know it. Someone explained to me not so long ago that if you had a mortgage on a house for £5Mil you would owe the back £5m. If the payments were £10K per month, but you earned £15K and were able to pay at least the interest then technically you are not in current debt. The Glaziers have mortgaged Red filth to the limit but their (although dropping off the longer they are shit and out of Champs league) commercial income easily pays the debt. Each year they mortgage again up to the level they can based on commercial income.

The issue is what happens when the Glaziers leave - who would incur the debt then? (not that i give a flying fuck)

This maybe utter shit but it does seem to make sense of why they can just keep spunking money each window

[Meanwood Villa]

The financial regulations don't apply to Man Utd and they were never intended to

[SoccerHQ]

The financial regulations don't apply to Man Utd and they were never intended to

Man. United are cost cutting though. All the off field stuff and even on the pitch they've told Casemiro to jog on when his performances currently are meriting a contract extension.

Just made the point elsewhere but someone like Malen is a good case in point here. He was apparently on about 120kpw. How many prem games did his start for us in 12 months? Barely more than five.

We signed him, cut him from the CL squad within a week due to signing Rashford and even this season he hasn't started much even with Ollie in terrible form.

At least Guessand coming from French league won't be bleeding us in wages but this is where we need more long term thinking. Anyone we sign in future for 100kpw needs to be someone who can instantly come into first team and make an impact.

[Beard82]

Wow - so were basically selling Rogers in the summer.

We are more likely than not to get CL income so that will cover a fair chunk of a loss. Pretty sad we need CL income most years when that is far from guaranteed as we saw last season.

I would say without question we need to be moving all of Martinez, Digne and Watkins on in the summer. All been excellent servants for us but we've had their best years so for the wages they're on we need to be a bit ruthless and tell their agents to start looking for new clubs.

This is where we'll see how long term the vision really is as it has become very short term in last few years to get in CL just signing short term options like Sancho and Rashford to try to get bursts of form going in the league.

We should comfortably meet the 85% wage ratio for prem but the UEFA one is going to be more of a challenge with our current squad.

Yeah but we won’t get the CL revenue in this years accounts which need to show a £5m profit. 

I know I moan on about this but I think we should be taking legal action of some type to try and get these rules updated.  The problem is were back at the reverse Sam vimes boot theory. Selling players we own and can afford for less then there worth because a lot of clubs with much more debt tell us to.  Who then get the players way below market rate hence keeping us poor for ever