Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 It's interesting to see where the anger about all this is and isn't being directed. Some people are angry at the owners for being greedy. This is clearly not true - they want to put more money into the Club, not take it out. Many are angry at Heck - this isn't difficult with some of the things he has done like kicking season ticket holders out of their seats and making claims which don't fit with reality (e.g. our fantastic new tunnel) and what was said in That Letter. But he is just trying to increase revenue to comply with PSR. Some are angry at the PSR rules themselves - a ridiculous rigged system that will prevent us from ever properly competing. Hardly anyone seems to be angry at the main factor tipping PSR against us - player wages. Football players get paid more in a week for kicking a ball around than a nurse earns in 5 years. In itself, this is obscene but it never used to directly affect the fans. Now fans are being directly fleeced to pay for players' astronomical, unjustifiable, obscene wages and yet we will go each week and cheer them on and sing their names. Nobody blames them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted September 4 Moderator Share Posted September 4 1 hour ago, Ceemo said: Just an illustration about where we are in comparison to some other clubs with regards revenue amidst the Champions League ticket prices anger: Last released full Accounts at the end of 22/23 season from the Swiss Ramble Manchester City: Total Revenue - £712.8 million £71.9m (10.1%) from matchday £299.4m broadcasting £341.4m commercial Won the Champions League + Premier League + FA Cup that season. Manchester United: Total Revenue - £648.4 million £136.4m (21%) from matchday £209.1m broadcasting £302m commercial Finished 3rd in the Premier League, Won League Cup + Got to Quarter-Finals of Europa League that season. Liverpool: Total Revenue - £593.8 million £79.8m (13.4%) from matchday £241.6m broadcasting £272.5m commercial Finished 5th in the Premier League and Got to the Round of 16 in the Champions League that season. Tottenham: Total Revenue - £549.6 million £117.6m (21.4%) from matchday £204.3m broadcasting £227.8m commercial Finished 8th in the Premier League and got to the Round of 16 in the Champions League that season. Chelsea: Total Revenue - £512.5 million + £101 million from sale of property (hotels) (£76.5m) and 'other operating income' ($30.6m) £76.5m (14.9%) from matchday £225.9m broadcasting £210.1m commercial Finished 12th in the Premier League and got to the Quarter-Finals of the Champions League that season. Arsenal: Total Revenue - £464.6 million £102.6m (22%) from matchday £191.2m broadcasting £169.3m commercial £1.5m on player loans Finished 2nd in the Premier League and Got to Round of 16 in the Europa League that season. Newcastle United: Total Revenue - £250.3 million £37.9m (15%) from matchday £165.5m broadcasting £46.9m commercial Finished 4th in the Premier League. West Ham: Total Revenue - £236.7 million £41m (17%) from matchday £147.6m broadcasting £48.1m commercial Finished 14th in the Premier League and won the Conference League that season Villa: Total Revenue - £217.7 million £18.8m (8.6%) from matchday £152.6m (70.1%) broadcasting £40.6m (18.65%) commercial £5.7m (2.62%) on player loans Finished 7th in the Premier League. Matchday revenue figures can be misleading - some clubs include their hospitality, some don't, some include the revenue from F&B, some don't, there are all sorts of factors that make them difficult to compare. Obviously that doesn't mean we're making the money Spurs are and just reporting it on another line, but I'd take our £18.8m there with a pinch of salt - there were 825,000 tickets sold at Villa Park in the 2022-23 season, those figures suggest each fan spent £22.78 on a matchday, including the ticket and including those who were in hospitality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 1 hour ago, Ceemo said: Just an illustration about where we are in comparison to some other clubs with regards revenue amidst the Champions League ticket prices anger: Last released full Accounts at the end of 22/23 season from the Swiss Ramble Manchester City: Total Revenue - £712.8 million £71.9m (10.1%) from matchday £299.4m broadcasting £341.4m commercial Won the Champions League + Premier League + FA Cup that season. Manchester United: Total Revenue - £648.4 million £136.4m (21%) from matchday £209.1m broadcasting £302m commercial Finished 3rd in the Premier League, Won League Cup + Got to Quarter-Finals of Europa League that season. Liverpool: Total Revenue - £593.8 million £79.8m (13.4%) from matchday £241.6m broadcasting £272.5m commercial Finished 5th in the Premier League and Got to the Round of 16 in the Champions League that season. Tottenham: Total Revenue - £549.6 million £117.6m (21.4%) from matchday £204.3m broadcasting £227.8m commercial Finished 8th in the Premier League and got to the Round of 16 in the Champions League that season. Chelsea: Total Revenue - £512.5 million + £101 million from sale of property (hotels) (£76.5m) and 'other operating income' ($30.6m) £76.5m (14.9%) from matchday £225.9m broadcasting £210.1m commercial Finished 12th in the Premier League and got to the Quarter-Finals of the Champions League that season. Arsenal: Total Revenue - £464.6 million £102.6m (22%) from matchday £191.2m broadcasting £169.3m commercial £1.5m on player loans Finished 2nd in the Premier League and Got to Round of 16 in the Europa League that season. Newcastle United: Total Revenue - £250.3 million £37.9m (15%) from matchday £165.5m broadcasting £46.9m commercial Finished 4th in the Premier League. West Ham: Total Revenue - £236.7 million £41m (17%) from matchday £147.6m broadcasting £48.1m commercial Finished 14th in the Premier League and won the Conference League that season Villa: Total Revenue - £217.7 million £18.8m (8.6%) from matchday £152.6m (70.1%) broadcasting £40.6m (18.65%) commercial £5.7m (2.62%) on player loans Finished 7th in the Premier League. mad aint it. from match day revenue, M.City - 72m, Manure - 136m, Spurs - 117m, Arsenal - 103m. Villa - 19m. Manure, Spurs & Arsenal earn pretty much 50% or more in solely match day revenue, than we make in our entire turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nepal_villan Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 1 minute ago, MaVilla said: mad aint it. from match day revenue, M.City - 72m, Manure - 136m, Spurs - 117m, Arsenal - 103m. Villa - 19m. Manure, Spurs & Arsenal earn pretty much 50% or more in solely match day revenue, than we make in our entire turnover. That disparity is not a result of standard ticket prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 2 hours ago, thabucks said: It’s still a proportion though and as we were close to being docked 10points for breaching the limit every penny they can rinse and maximise will be done to avoid that happening again as the screws turn because of the SCR reducing year on year Remember when our proposal for allowable losses was rejected and Heck said something along the lines of " We realise this is something we are going to have to do ourselves " with regards to increasing revenue and success etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAVFV77 Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 3 hours ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: It's interesting to see where the anger about all this is and isn't being directed. Some people are angry at the owners for being greedy. This is clearly not true - they want to put more money into the Club, not take it out. Many are angry at Heck - this isn't difficult with some of the things he has done like kicking season ticket holders out of their seats and making claims which don't fit with reality (e.g. our fantastic new tunnel) and what was said in That Letter. But he is just trying to increase revenue to comply with PSR. Some are angry at the PSR rules themselves - a ridiculous rigged system that will prevent us from ever properly competing. Hardly anyone seems to be angry at the main factor tipping PSR against us - player wages. Football players get paid more in a week for kicking a ball around than a nurse earns in 5 years. In itself, this is obscene but it never used to directly affect the fans. Now fans are being directly fleeced to pay for players' astronomical, unjustifiable, obscene wages and yet we will go each week and cheer them on and sing their names. Nobody blames them. If you were offered 100k per week would you say no? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaVilla Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 7 hours ago, MaVilla said: mad aint it. from match day revenue, M.City - 72m, Manure - 136m, Spurs - 117m, Arsenal - 103m. Villa - 19m. Manure, Spurs & Arsenal earn pretty much 50% or more in solely match day revenue, than we make in our entire turnover. The reason for the disparity is obvious - Villa Park is not a stadium fit for the modern age. Low capacity and poor facilities mean we will always be behind the others. The business (not club) has decided that to close that gap they will gouge their loyal customers (not fans) and not invest a single penny in improving the deeply substandard facilities for the vast majority of these customers. They had other viable options - ie a significant rebuild of VP or build a new stadium - but have chosen to ignore these and gouge us instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 A player salary cap would lance the boil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 5 hours ago, grantholtgolazo said: One thing I don’t understand is how much anger is directed at Heck versus how much is leveled at the owners. It seems fair to say Heck and team will be responsible for aspects of growing revenue but the remit is issued by the owners. The owners are not being blindsided by Heck’s work, they will be aware of it and fully signed on. In that sense Heck is intentionally a shield/lightning rod, diverting criticism which would have reached the owners by positioning himself as the face of revenue development. I’m not calling for anyone to be further criticized, I’m just wondering how it is the owners largely escape any criticism at all re:revenue plans. I imagine our owners have a lot of good will and faith in the bank after all the good they have done since they bought the clubs while Heck has made himself and his person front and center for a number of unpopular decisions in the short time he's been here. His style of communication or the lack thereof certainly isn't helping him. But don't worry, when/if the results on the pitch are no longer covering for the negative stuff the owners will also be called out on the off pitch stuff. I imagine Heck will move on at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornburyVilla Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 9 hours ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: It's interesting to see where the anger about all this is and isn't being directed. Some people are angry at the owners for being greedy. This is clearly not true - they want to put more money into the Club, not take it out. Many are angry at Heck - this isn't difficult with some of the things he has done like kicking season ticket holders out of their seats and making claims which don't fit with reality (e.g. our fantastic new tunnel) and what was said in That Letter. But he is just trying to increase revenue to comply with PSR. Some are angry at the PSR rules themselves - a ridiculous rigged system that will prevent us from ever properly competing. Hardly anyone seems to be angry at the main factor tipping PSR against us - player wages. Football players get paid more in a week for kicking a ball around than a nurse earns in 5 years. In itself, this is obscene but it never used to directly affect the fans. Now fans are being directly fleeced to pay for players' astronomical, unjustifiable, obscene wages and yet we will go each week and cheer them on and sing their names. Nobody blames them. I don’t comment much on here, but must say this is one of most well thought out and rational posts I’ve read. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 10 hours ago, Ceemo said: Just an illustration about where we are in comparison to some other clubs with regards revenue amidst the Champions League ticket prices anger: Last released full Accounts at the end of 22/23 season from the Swiss Ramble Manchester City: Total Revenue - £712.8 million £71.9m (10.1%) from matchday £299.4m broadcasting £341.4m commercial Won the Champions League + Premier League + FA Cup that season. Manchester United: Total Revenue - £648.4 million £136.4m (21%) from matchday £209.1m broadcasting £302m commercial Finished 3rd in the Premier League, Won League Cup + Got to Quarter-Finals of Europa League that season. Liverpool: Total Revenue - £593.8 million £79.8m (13.4%) from matchday £241.6m broadcasting £272.5m commercial Finished 5th in the Premier League and Got to the Round of 16 in the Champions League that season. Tottenham: Total Revenue - £549.6 million £117.6m (21.4%) from matchday £204.3m broadcasting £227.8m commercial Finished 8th in the Premier League and got to the Round of 16 in the Champions League that season. Chelsea: Total Revenue - £512.5 million + £101 million from sale of property (hotels) (£76.5m) and 'other operating income' ($30.6m) £76.5m (14.9%) from matchday £225.9m broadcasting £210.1m commercial Finished 12th in the Premier League and got to the Quarter-Finals of the Champions League that season. Arsenal: Total Revenue - £464.6 million £102.6m (22%) from matchday £191.2m broadcasting £169.3m commercial £1.5m on player loans Finished 2nd in the Premier League and Got to Round of 16 in the Europa League that season. Newcastle United: Total Revenue - £250.3 million £37.9m (15%) from matchday £165.5m broadcasting £46.9m commercial Finished 4th in the Premier League. West Ham: Total Revenue - £236.7 million £41m (17%) from matchday £147.6m broadcasting £48.1m commercial Finished 14th in the Premier League and won the Conference League that season Villa: Total Revenue - £217.7 million £18.8m (8.6%) from matchday £152.6m (70.1%) broadcasting £40.6m (18.65%) commercial £5.7m (2.62%) on player loans Finished 7th in the Premier League. If we can hit the £400m target Heck has set for us we can bridge enough of the gap to be consistently competitive with Emery, our youth development and scouting edges. To do that we will need Matchday revenue closer to £40m which seems nearly impossible looking at West Hams income which is from a much bigger stadium and a run to a European final. Broadcasting can average £200m based PL position and European competition income. The majority of variance in this department would go on performance related pay for players so for SCR this is self correcting once we've updated all the relevant contracts. So that means Heck needs to get us to £160m in commerical revenue from the £40m we were at under Purslow in the 22/23 season. I think when we see the 24/25 seasons commerical numbers we'll be up at £80m but that means he has to double it from this season. I don't doubt him, he seems highly competent and clearly vastly experienced. The growth market is clearly the US a market and sponsors he knows well. We will continue to play preseason games there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 9 hours ago, nepal_villan said: That disparity is not a result of standard ticket prices. The big variation we need to account for here is capacity, location and demand. Now demand is a variable thing tied to performance and the capacity. Old trafford is double the capacity of Villapark so ticket prices in the 40-60 range meets the clubs needs as it has a huge Corporate tier which generates huge revenue. We see the London impact of Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham and West Ham. We need to find the right balance in prices. I think we are about right in terms of our prices, we have massive demand for tickets and the team is performing very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walmley_Villa Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 10 hours ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: Hardly anyone seems to be angry at the main factor tipping PSR against us - player wages. Football players get paid more in a week for kicking a ball around than a nurse earns in 5 years. In itself, this is obscene but it never used to directly affect the fans. Now fans are being directly fleeced to pay for players' astronomical, unjustifiable, obscene wages and yet we will go each week and cheer them on and sing their names. Nobody blames them. You raise some great points but this is the one for me - player inflation - transfer fee / agents fees and wages. You now have Saudi ramping this up to a new level - Ivan Toney £400k a week....I'm not sure the Premier League will be able to compete with this full stop. Which is why the Super League conversation will no doubt also be on the horizon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 A what point do fans say **** this and start supporting a smaller team from their area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 You can't really blame the players. They are paid based on the revenue the game generates. Same way musicians do and movie stars etc.. If we kept player wages down it would just mean more people like the Glazers taking dividends out of the clubs as their profits. The simple reality of the economics are. Lower prices for tickets when there is high demand means you will never be able to get a ticket unless you are one who already has a season ticket. It's a balancing act of prices and demand. That is how the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaVilla Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 1 minute ago, CVByrne said: Every fan is allowed do that at any time. The cold reality of this in the ground is for every season ticket holder who says **** this I've had enough you will have an ecstatic fan who finally gets a season ticket having been on the waiting list for years trying to get one. That is the simple reality of the current situation This is a huge generalization. For these games there is huge demand but there are going to be significant empty seats this season for home cup games and for home games v the lesser teams. There is also an increasing disassociation for many customers with this business despite having the best manager and team we’ve had in a generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 What was the main reason why we made CL? It was the 100m for Grealish that one of the best managers in the world was able to use. If we want to keep competing over next 3 years, we will have to do it again. Revenue wont grow enough to matter for another 5 years min.Who is our next 100m sale? Walkins? Ramsey? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 10 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: The main reason we made CL was because we have an elite manager who got the team playing to the absolute maximum, despite not spending much money. I get what you are saying and they probably go hand in hand, but if we handnt sold Grealish, i doubt Mochi, Emery would have came as their hands would have been severely tied. We will need to sell another 100m player to keep moving forward in the short/med term is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 31 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said: This is a huge generalization. For these games there is huge demand but there are going to be significant empty seats this season for home cup games and for home games v the lesser teams. There is also an increasing disassociation for many customers with this business despite having the best manager and team we’ve had in a generation. Empty seats usually means people didn't go to the particular game not that they didn't pay for the seat in question. Going on last seasons attendance in PL (which doesn't count sales just attendance) we only dipped below 41,000 for 2 games and below the 42,000 capacity for 7 more. So for remaining 10 were essentially fully attended. So going on attendance alone we never dipped below 96% of full capacity at home to Brighton and that was probably due to the KO time of 12:30 What % of these games had tickets available for sale on the day is the question in relation to the economics of the club. Not specifically attendance. I believe the Season Ticket Waiting list is over 30,000 people which is a huge demand when you consider how many season tickets there are. So the disassociation you refer to only really matters economically if that translates into loss of income via ticket sales and there is no evidence at all of that happening based on the available data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 (edited) 26 minutes ago, HeyAnty said: I get what you are saying and they probably go hand in hand, but if we handnt sold Grealish, i doubt Mochi, Emery would have came as their hands would have been severely tied. We will need to sell another 100m player to keep moving forward in the short/med term is my point. The thing is a 100m sale was absolutely huge for us at that moment in time. No doubt about it the sale of Grealish for such a large and inflated fee was one of the best things this club has done since being promoted. The other is appointment of Emery. Going forward though such sales will be an accumulation of players and not a single sale of such size. This summer we've made profit on player sales of around £90m when added to say the £40m and £20m from the previous two summers we get to include 1/3rd of that total in our income for the squad cost rule. So it was clearly bad that Grealish and his £100m has rolled off this season making this a tough one. When we break that down to financial years. We have £20m, £110m and £20m (so far) as profit on player sales. I assume we'll bump our current season profits up before June ME This is good situation to be in next season as we have very little rolling off at the end of this season with only Chukwuemeka sale of £20m out of the income. So we will need to make and continue to make player sales to bump up the underlying income of the club in the SCR land. Edited September 5 by CVByrne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts