OutByEaster? Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 In terms of FFP income - I'm not entirely convinced that some of the stuff that gets included should be included - for FFP purposes, I think only the money that the football club generates through football based activities should be included. If Spurs host Beyonce, or an NFL club or have a go kart track under the stadium - none of those things are football related - they just happen to take place on the club's premises - if Villa tripled the size of Bodymoor and farmed chickens, should that money be included for the purposes of FFP - if we opened a small factory in the North Stand car park that manufactured hubcaps, would that be included in FFP? Where's the line on that and why has everyone just accepted that for example Spurs should be able to pay their full back £10k a week more because the Jackonsville Panthers needed a place in London to play? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 17 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: Got that, but don't you think it is strange that the spending has reduced dramatically this window, have all clubs just suddenly hit the edge of ffp limits Everton and Nottingham Forest charges have made clubs wary. The new domestic TV deal went up by less than inflation - ie: a real term cut in TV money. A lot of clubs spent a lot last summer, so spending less now to balance it out. For the 8 clubs in Europe, UEFA rules are tightening every year. For Villa in particular, the £100m Grealish fee drops off our calculation this summer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, MrBlack said: FFP has been a thing for well over a decade now. Clubs are making more money than ever from the current TV deal. What has happened that suddenly means all the clubs are right on the edge of the FFP limits? Why weren't they last January? Or the one before, or the one before? For us, are we really that close to our 3 year limit? Our spend has been moderate, and income constantly improving (Grealish sale accounted for). Our, are our limits with a view on the uefa ffp limits, which are new to us and explain why we might have to cut our cloth more than we would have? a few things happened: a number of rules were changed, covid losses were removed (which clubs were probably using to mask problems), the clubs agreed to resolve issues in the same financial year and Everton received a 10 point deduction. The latter i believe has woken a lot of clubs up to the fact that this is serious and cannot simply be kicked down the road. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: Got that, but don't you think it is strange that the spending has reduced dramatically this window, have all clubs just suddenly hit the edge of ffp limits The way the squad cost rule works is on a calendar year basis. So Jan to December. So last January at the end of the year the squad cost level of 90% kicked in. This year it's 80% which is putting the proper strain on. Most sides were likely in and around 90-100% already for their squad cost so complying last year wasn't that difficult really. Now it's beginning to bite and teams think it's easier to manage properly in summer when buying and selling is easier. Also in summer you will know what UEFA competition and thus what income you will expect in Sep to Dec period and that's a very big factor. So there are too many unknowns right now Edited January 26 by CVByrne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 7 minutes ago, CVByrne said: The way the squad cost rule works is on a calendar year basis. So Jan to December. Are you sure? That sounds daft from UEFA not to align it with the football season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: In terms of FFP income - I'm not entirely convinced that some of the stuff that gets included should be included - for FFP purposes, I think only the money that the football club generates through football based activities should be included. If Spurs host Beyonce, or an NFL club or have a go kart track under the stadium - none of those things are football related - they just happen to take place on the club's premises - if Villa tripled the size of Bodymoor and farmed chickens, should that money be included for the purposes of FFP - if we opened a small factory in the North Stand car park that manufactured hubcaps, would that be included in FFP? Where's the line on that and why has everyone just accepted that for example Spurs should be able to pay their full back £10k a week more because the Jackonsville Panthers needed a place in London to play? Aston Villa don't own Villa Park, so that should make it null and void for us. However, as far as I'm aware, Spurs do own the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: In terms of FFP income - I'm not entirely convinced that some of the stuff that gets included should be included - for FFP purposes, I think only the money that the football club generates through football based activities should be included. If Spurs host Beyonce, or an NFL club or have a go kart track under the stadium - none of those things are football related - they just happen to take place on the club's premises - if Villa tripled the size of Bodymoor and farmed chickens, should that money be included for the purposes of FFP - if we opened a small factory in the North Stand car park that manufactured hubcaps, would that be included in FFP? Where's the line on that and why has everyone just accepted that for example Spurs should be able to pay their full back £10k a week more because the Jackonsville Panthers needed a place in London to play? by that stretch, you would also exclude shirt sales, programs (are they still a thing), food at the game, etc, etc. Commercial sponsors, what are they really and why should a name on a shirt allow you to gain money. If the club owns a stadium and chooses to rent out that stadium then that is income. When we sold the stadium to another company setup by NSWE, we were happy to take that as income and use it to purchase players. Feels like were picking and choosing our rules here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: Aston Villa don't own Villa Park, so that should make it null and void for us. However, as far as I'm aware, Spurs do own the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. We own Bodymoor - if we started farming on part of it, should that count? In so far as I'm aware, you didn't have to be a Spurs fan to attend a Beyonce concert, and most of the people that did weren't the slightest bit interested in football. No problem with Spurs making the money, I just don't think it should count for FFP - it's not fair play because it's not football money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: by that stretch, you would also exclude shirt sales, programs (are they still a thing), food at the game, etc, etc. Commercial sponsors, what are they really and why should a name on a shirt allow you to gain money. If we started making blue check shirts that didn't say Villa on them anywhere, or t-shirts that had Taylor Swift on the front, or programmes for films we were showing in the Warehouse, then yes, I'd also exclude that. If it's football related - buying a shirt with a Villa badge, programmes for Villa games, food at Villa games etc then I'd include that. If the Commercial sponsor is on a Villa shirt, then I'd allow it - if they sponsored Attic brewing co. who we used on matchdays, then no, I'd exclude it. Nothing against the income, I just don't think it should count for FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Just now, OutByEaster? said: We own Bodymoor - if we started farming on part of it, should that count? In so far as I'm aware, you didn't have to be a Spurs fan to attend a Beyonce concert, and most of the people that did weren't the slightest bit interested in football. No problem with Spurs making the money, I just don't think it should count for FFP - it's not fair play because it's not football money. What have BK8 got to do with football? Weve got 14 brand sponsors, not really anything to do with football. FFP isnt about football, its about turning the football clubs into sustainable business'. If a business can earn an income, and that income generates a profit that its helping the club become more sustainable. When fans do stadium tours, thats an income. When villa park held a concert for Pink, thats an income. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 37 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: What have BK8 got to do with football? Weve got 14 brand sponsors, not really anything to do with football. FFP isnt about football, its about turning the football clubs into sustainable business'. If a business can earn an income, and that income generates a profit that its helping the club become more sustainable. When fans do stadium tours, thats an income. When villa park held a concert for Pink, thats an income. I guess for me, BK8 is paying for football's exposure - the product it's buying is the Premier League, in this case through Villa, for stadium tours, the product is football. For Pink! that's not the case, there's no football in the equation, ditto for an NFL team at Spurs. I wonder for example, if Bodymoor were to open the doors as a private members gym, with access alongside the football players and membership costing £10m a year, with Mallory Edens the first member - would that £10m count toward FFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I guess for me, BK8 is paying for football's exposure - the product it's buying is the Premier League, in this case through Villa, for stadium tours, the product is football. For Pink! that's not the case, there's no football in the equation, ditto for an NFL team at Spurs. I wonder for example, if Bodymoor were to open the doors as a private members gym, with access alongside the football players and membership costing £10m a year, with Mallory Edens the first member - would that £10m count toward FFP? With your body moor example, yes I assume that would count as income. A good example is villa park is used for trade shows and exhibitions in the holte suite. This rental income is also allowable income for the club. Unfortunately we're just not as good at this as others. I understand your point about football income, but the rules are about sustainability, not about making everything a level playing field for each club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 1 minute ago, cheltenham_villa said: I understand your point about football income, but the rules are about sustainability, not about making everything a level playing field for each club. You're probably right, I think it's a little grey though and it'll be interesting to see if a club tests those rules at some point. I'd also argue that the rules are about not making everything a level playing field for each club, not about sustainability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, bobzy said: Aston Villa don't own Villa Park, so that should make it null and void for us. However, as far as I'm aware, Spurs do own the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Most people don't own the building their store is in, but take in all the money relating to their business. If Villa opened villa karting on the land they're renting it's fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleVilla Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 I think with the American owners in the league they've pushed these sorts of incomes and sponsorship's. Most of the big league teams in North America (NFL, MLB, NHL etc) all have irrelevant connections or "official partners". It's just another name for sponsorship. I think Manure have Del Diablo wine as an official partner? Just a sign of the times. More companies want to be associated or promote through the massive global viewing of the Premiership. Clubs like us have to be inventive with these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 26 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26 (edited) 47 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I guess for me, BK8 is paying for football's exposure - the product it's buying is the Premier League, in this case through Villa, for stadium tours, the product is football. For Pink! that's not the case, there's no football in the equation, ditto for an NFL team at Spurs. I wonder for example, if Bodymoor were to open the doors as a private members gym, with access alongside the football players and membership costing £10m a year, with Mallory Edens the first member - would that £10m count toward FFP? I am in, please PM me details, the kids trust fund gone but can not make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Will me and Mallory share changing/bathing area? Edited January 26 by Follyfoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 26 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26 1 minute ago, Follyfoot said: I am in, please PM me details, the kids trust fund gone but can not make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Will me and Mallory share changing/bathing area? and for another 2 million can you exclude the players 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 hours ago, CVByrne said: What is so hard for people to understand that they repeatedly ask this question? UEFA have tightened the rules and are phased in from 2023 to 2025 and the squad cost rule essentially means 30%+ reduction in terms of your squads cost Vs revenue. If you tighten the rules it means clubs need to tighten their expenditure. Bit that only applies to the top sides. The rest of the PL that don't qualify for Europe don't care about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 12 hours ago, MrBlack said: Bit that only applies to the top sides. The rest of the PL that don't qualify for Europe don't care about that. Except they do because PL are changing rules in summer to align more with UEFA Edited January 27 by CVByrne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 18 hours ago, CVByrne said: What is so hard for people to understand that they repeatedly ask this question? UEFA have tightened the rules and are phased in from 2023 to 2025 and the squad cost rule essentially means 30%+ reduction in terms of your squads cost Vs revenue. If you tighten the rules it means clubs need to tighten their expenditure. You seem to be more clued up on this stuff than most. What's the deal with Girona? Isn't there rule if 2 clubs owned by same group qualify for CL they can't both play in the competition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts