Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

I still think it would be more, but £50m per season isn’t buttons

It is if there's FFP reform. It is even if we boost our commercial revenue, both of which aren't dependent upon moving from SJP. 

[timeEd32]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

I'm pretty sure they are and isn't that figure from the last accounts which shown a sharp increase and itsbquite possible those for the financial year just gone will as well?

 

Yup, we're on a decent trajectory and I'm optimistic about commercial deals being announced this summer.

 

But it's a very, very big gap. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

And in the meantime there's the possibility of FFP reform. 

 

I don't really understand this disclaimer. Sure, it would help in the short term. But to me the attractive thing about increasing these revenue streams is you can get to a point where it becomes owner agnostic.

 

The biggest benefit PIF could provide isn't spending ungodly sums of money to win a few trophies in a decade or two before leaving for one reason or another; it's positioning the club to be a sustainable force for many decades to come.

[midds]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It is if there's FFP reform. It is even if we boost our commercial revenue, both of which aren't dependent upon moving from SJP. 

Exactly. If they relax the sponsorship rules then there is no need to move stadium in order to raise revenue into the club. We've all been kicking the new stadium idea around thinking we had to do it in order to bring in the cash in order to allow us to compete but once that need goes then the idea of a new stadium doesn't seem quite so appealing

[Abacus]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

It is if there's FFP reform. It is even if we boost our commercial revenue, both of which aren't dependent upon moving from SJP. 

Those are my thoughts, there's so much more to be done with international branding and marketing etc that we've neglected. But you still need a USP, which is a unique stadium which still has an atmosphere in a pretty unique city, rather than creating a corporate megadome a mile or two away, which could in the long run become a white elephant unless you move all the hedge funds, banking and international travel from London here too.

 

Can see it now; a remake of cash converters and a full takeover of the airport. And we'll claim to have invented Shakespeare too.

[Dr Jinx]

Old Trafford was already a huge ground but those charts really add weight to the building a new stadium notion. Spurs and Arsenal also have massive revenue from match day.

 

We could easily do those numbers.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Yup, we're on a decent trajectory and I'm optimistic about commercial deals being announced this summer.

 

But it's a very, very big gap. 

 

 

I don't really understand this disclaimer. Sure, it would help in the short term. But to me the attractive thing about increasing these revenue streams is you can get to a point where it becomes owner agnostic.

 

The biggest benefit PIF could provide isn't spending ungodly sums of money to win a few trophies in a decade or two before leaving for one reason or another; it's positioning the club to be a sustainable force for many decades to come.

 

Because it's chicken and egg. You become self-sustainable by being successful and you become successful with investment. 

 

Chelsea and Man City grew through owner investment, becoming successful and then growing commercial revenue, their academy, player recruitment and sales.

 

If there's FFP reform there's the opportunity to achieve the success needed to become self-sustaining.

[LiquidAK]

Have to explore every possibility before moving stadium imo, it should be a last resort only used if there's absolutely no way to compete financially without it. Because once we move, there would be no going back.

[FLUMPO235]

7 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

Wonder If if Dan’s having 2nd thoughts now? 

He might not get WiFi down in his garden and he doesn’t know. 

[Wolfcastle]

11 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Because it's chicken and egg. You become self-sustainable by being successful and you become successful with investment. 

 

Chelsea and Man City grew through owner investment, becoming successful and then growing commercial revenue, their academy, player recruitment and sales.

 

If there's FFP reform there's the opportunity to achieve the success needed to become self-sustaining.

Absolutely. Success is a driver of growth and speculating to accumalate isn't rigid enough for FFP. Chelesa and Man City make a ton of money from streams they'd never have without success - Chelsea loaning out a hundred and eight seven players, Man City flushing out the infrastructure whilst being successful was planned has partly done what these rules were supposed to do and limit unsustainable spending, whilst creating two super clubs, prohibiting us and Villa doing the same.

[timeEd32]

17 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Because it's chicken and egg. You become self-sustainable by being successful and you become successful with investment. 

 

Chelsea and Man City grew through owner investment, becoming successful and then growing commercial revenue, their academy, player recruitment and sales.

 

If there's FFP reform there's the opportunity to achieve the success needed to become self-sustaining.

 

Yes, being able to invest is critical to kickstarting things. But Chelsea is also the best example of what I'm talking about. Two decades of success propped up by owner losses. It made them a global powerhouse, but they are now also vulnerable. Despite having a higher profile and far more recent success they now have a £100m+ deficit compared to their 'inferior' neighbors. They've made a business out of player trading, but that is also the most vulnerable revenue stream next to European payments. I'd much rather be in Tottenham's position heading into the next decade or two.

 

I'm not arguing for leaving SJP by the way. I've said before I think it's a fairly simple math problem on what revenue number the current stadium can get to. I also think our current number is deflated because of various Ashley leftovers, so the gap to at least a Chelsea isn't quite as big.

 

But I don't think you can just dismiss £50m+ as if it's nothing. If you accept lower matchday income then you need to make up for it elsewhere as Liverpool have managed to do.

[madras]

3 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Yes, being able to invest is critical to kickstarting things. But Chelsea is also the best example of what I'm talking about. Two decades of success propped up by owner losses. It made them a global powerhouse, but they are now also vulnerable. Despite having a higher profile and far more recent success they now have a £100m+ deficit compared to their 'inferior' neighbors. They've made a business out of player trading, but that is also the most vulnerable revenue stream next to European payments. I'd much rather be in Tottenham's position heading into the next decade or two.

 

I'm not arguing for leaving SJP by the way. I've said before I think it's a fairly simple math problem on what revenue number the current stadium can get to. I also think our current number is deflated because of various Ashley leftovers, so the gap to at least a Chelsea isn't quite as big.

 

But I don't think you can just dismiss £50m+ as if it's nothing. If you accept lower matchday income then you need to make up for it elsewhere as Liverpool have managed to do.

You can dismiss 50mill true but how much are they paying for that stadium to produce that extra 50million ?

[TheBrownBottle]

44 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It is if there's FFP reform. It is even if we boost our commercial revenue, both of which aren't dependent upon moving from SJP. 

Agreed, though I’m not at all confident that meaningful FFP reform is on the way.  There’s no indication that UEFA are about to change. 

[timeEd32]

1 minute ago, madras said:

You can dismiss 50mill true but how much are they paying for that stadium to produce that extra 50million ?

 

Yeah, that is part of the math problem for expansion too. In our case it also depends on if PIF will pay for it out of the kindness of their hearts or saddle the club with debt. If the former then it doesn't really matter what it costs in either scenario.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

You can dismiss 50mill true but how much are they paying for that stadium to produce that extra 50million ?

Less as a percentage than extending the Gallowgate would achieve relative to increased income 

[duo]

4 hours ago, Jack27 said:

Ornstein throwing some cold water on the news

It's cause he's not got the scoop - no smoke without fire.

[madras]

6 minutes ago, duo said:

It's cause he's not got the scoop - no smoke without fire.

Smoke bombs ?

[andyc35i]

5 hours ago, ikri said:

Even just changing the rules on sponsorship from related companies would be huge for us.  No need to go around trying to find businesses willing to sponsor the club, just suddenly get sponsorship deals from PIF Golf, Saudi Airlines, Saudi Arabia 2034 World Cup, random taxi companies from Riyadh etc.  It would mean an immediate boost to the club's turnover and allow the club to spend as much as they want to all within the PSR rules.

This sort of stuff is what I’m actually most uncomfortable with. To me this is cheating and actually shouldn’t be allowed. What needs to change is the inability for owners to invest capital to drive progression 

[duo]

21 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

This sort of stuff is what I’m actually most uncomfortable with. To me this is cheating and actually shouldn’t be allowed. What needs to change is the inability for owners to invest capital to drive progression 

Unfortunately though - like the old motto says 'if you can't beat them - join them'.  Clubs like City have got to where have by exploiting such commercial opportunities.  If we are to stand a chance to even getting close to their commercial revenue we'll have to do the same.

 

 

Edited April 4 by duo

[Shak]

It would be initially incredibly exciting of course but there'd be something very hollow about the shackles coming off completely and us going all out and spending a billion over the next year on transfers.

 

I'd be absolutely delighted seeing us continue to shop primarily in the 30-40m bracket for a while more, buying younger players who aren't big names yet and looking to keep growing that way. Throw in the occasional Isak style signing, just to treat ourselves.

 

The fact that PSR in its current form means we apparently can't do that is ridiculous, especially after getting into the Champions League last year. Was clear we were hamstrung last summer and our squad depth issues came back to bite us this season.

 

Will be great if it becomes less restrictive and we at least have the chance to push on, even if it's not a level playing field.

[r0cafella]

Reading the tears on r soccer is glorious. I would respect them a whole lot more if they were honest and admitted they wanted to protect the privilege they’d been afforded due to these rules. 

[RobsonsWonderland]

26 minutes ago, Shak said:

It would be initially incredibly exciting of course but there'd be something very hollow about the shackles coming off completely and us going all out and spending a billion over the next year on transfers.

 

I'd be absolutely delighted seeing us continue to shop primarily in the 30-40m bracket for a while more, buying younger players who aren't big names yet and looking to keep growing that way. Throw in the occasional Isak style signing, just to treat ourselves.

 

The fact that PSR in its current form means we apparently can't do that is ridiculous, especially after getting into the Champions League last year. Was clear we were hamstrung last summer and our squad depth issues came back to bite us this season.

 

Will be great if it becomes less restrictive and we at least have the chance to push on, even if it's not a level playing field.

I thought the same until I reflected how hard the Ashley years were and more so other clubs fought to block the sale, ban the opportunity for us to grow and benefit from Saudi money themselves... For me we could do a City and I see them all on court in five years time 

[timeEd32]

15 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Reading the tears on r soccer is glorious. I would respect them a whole lot more if they were honest and admitted they wanted to protect the privilege they’d been afforded due to these rules. 

 

What did I just read?

[r0cafella]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

 

What did I just read?

?

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

?

Is there a link for it?  Not sure how to find it

[TheBrownBottle]

A ‘luxury tax’ is neither use nor ornament if UEFA don’t accept it.  They can place transfer embargoes and European bans on us.