FFP

[Mellin]

That kind of reflects how I feel, in that Tottenham and Chelsea are both gettable long term. Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal are and always have been the standouts regarding club size. Man City are juiced. Maybe post-Pep they'll come off.

[Dogtanian]

...not always.

[Percy McCarthy]

7th in Fair Market Value league, as published by The Sponsor, at £26.2m, up from £23.2m last season.


FMV for FOS Sponsorship (£m)

1 Liverpool 61
2 Man City 60.1
3 Man Utd 60
4 Arsenal 59.2
5 Chelsea 33.6
6 Spurs 29.8
7 Villa 26.2
8 Newcastle 16.9
9 Brighton 15
10 Everton 14.8
11 Palace 12.3
12 Sunderland 10.2
13 Brentford 8.3
14 Forest 8.2
15 Fulham 8
16 Bournemouth 6.4
17 Leeds 5.8
18 Ipswich 4.5
19 Coventry 4.5
20 Hull 3

Thats interesting - both Chelsea and Spurs dont have UCL (Super League) - but even with that were still less visible / valueable than those 2.

Being in the CL, now is the time to get everything we can plastered with brands. Training ground, stadium, FOS, sleeves, official paper clip partner, whatever. We’ve never been as visible as we will be next season. Also worth noting that gambling is only banned from FOS.

[Mellin]

...not always.

True. In my lifetime. Man United and Liverpool especially. Less so Arsenal.

Tottenham being in and amongst them has and always will be lol.

[Dante Lavelli]

That kind of reflects how I feel, in that Tottenham and Chelsea are both gettable long term. Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal are and always have been the standouts regarding club size. Man City are juiced. Maybe post-Pep they'll come off.

Whilst we have Emery it’s not essential that we match their income.  The competition will be churning through managers which is a great way of burning cash.

[Percy McCarthy]

Interesting response from football finance and law expert Stefan Borsen (sp?) to the bit of Tanswell’s article he quoted:

Tanswell: “Missing out on Champions League qualification is unlikely to be a major stumbling block given that, in theory at least, Chelsea should be in a better position to challenge for silverware next season and more readily able to compete in Europe’s blue-chip competition longer term than Villa.”

Borsen: “This is becoming an interesting question - is it true?

Chelsea have a similar sized stadium but can broadly generate double Villa from matchday (c£40-50m revenue difference). Plus, historically, generated double Villa commercially (c£100m revenue difference).

But Villa are addressing Matchday in a way Chelsea can't by building and how secure is Chelsea's commercial revenue vs Villa?

The gap is nowhere near as big as inferred here long term.”

Two years ago West Ham were above us in revenue, which is why I wanted them to go down until Spurs emerged as a possibility.

Where are West Ham now with all those London advantages?

[Dante Lavelli]

Plenty of credible reports that the silent investor in the Boehly takeover want a return on their investment soon, so any commercial advantage they have could be eroded by servicing that debt.

[Stu82]

Interesting response from football finance and law expert Stefan Borsen (sp?) to the bit of Tanswell’s article he quoted:

Tanswell: “Missing out on Champions League qualification is unlikely to be a major stumbling block given that, in theory at least, Chelsea should be in a better position to challenge for silverware next season and more readily able to compete in Europe’s blue-chip competition longer term than Villa.”

Borsen: “This is becoming an interesting question - is it true?

Chelsea have a similar sized stadium but can broadly generate double Villa from matchday (c£40-50m revenue difference). Plus, historically, generated double Villa commercially (c£100m revenue difference).

But Villa are addressing Matchday in a way Chelsea can't by building and how secure is Chelsea's commercial revenue vs Villa?

The gap is nowhere near as big as inferred here long term.”

Two years ago West Ham were above us in revenue, which is why I wanted them to go down until Spurs emerged as a possibility.

Where are West Ham now with all those London advantages?

Good points Percy, I think the commercial revenue gap will close as we become consistently a champs league team.
And if it wasn’t for that sham world team cup thing they would be in a far more difficult position.

[Villatillidie25]

Interesting response from football finance and law expert Stefan Borsen (sp?) to the bit of Tanswell’s article he quoted:

Tanswell: “Missing out on Champions League qualification is unlikely to be a major stumbling block given that, in theory at least, Chelsea should be in a better position to challenge for silverware next season and more readily able to compete in Europe’s blue-chip competition longer term than Villa.”

Borsen: “This is becoming an interesting question - is it true?

Chelsea have a similar sized stadium but can broadly generate double Villa from matchday (c£40-50m revenue difference). Plus, historically, generated double Villa commercially (c£100m revenue difference).

But Villa are addressing Matchday in a way Chelsea can't by building and how secure is Chelsea's commercial revenue vs Villa?

The gap is nowhere near as big as inferred here long term.”

Two years ago West Ham were above us in revenue, which is why I wanted them to go down until Spurs emerged as a possibility.

Where are West Ham now with all those London advantages?

Good points Percy, I think the commercial revenue gap will close as we become consistently a champs league team.
And if it wasn’t for that sham world team cup thing they would be in a far more difficult position.

The CWC definitely helped but it’s not as lucrative as people think given the tax implications and the fact that it prevents the club doing a pre season tour. It’s also only once every four years (currently) so not really recurring.