Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jonas]

Its not just the PSR rules holding clubs back its that it will only ever lead to the already advantaged getting more and more money relative to everyone else.

Where's the absurdum infinitum arguments re competitiveness should APT or PSR and the like be ditched or slackened about that.

[Begbie]

22 minutes ago, Jonas said:

Its not just the PSR rules holding clubs back its that it will only ever lead to the already advantaged getting more and more money relative to everyone else.

Where's the absurdum infinitum arguments re competitiveness should APT or PSR and the like be ditched or slackened about that.

The «other clubs» need to start making noise, but i looks like they dont care. 

 

hope we do something especially regarding that the Sela value was downgraded to 25M pr season, while Man Utd get near 60M pr season from Snapdragon. Even without the ruling hoe could they value us so low..

[SteV]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Arsenal are a massive club with solid infrastructure who had been underperforming for at least 5 years. In the best market for revenue and academy players in England and maybe the world. 
 

Thats a massive difference to Newcastle United. 
 

Prior to this Arsenal had fallen to 6th in revenues from the big 6.  A successful Arsenal should generate more revenue than Spurs and Liverpool. 

Why more than Liverpool?

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

This has been explained before though - we've already signed off the big deals.

 

The amount required for that 40% growth increases each time, where is it all coming from?

 

40% on £150m = £60m

40% on £210m = £84m

40% on £294m = £118m 

...and so on

The point you seem to be missing is that there are clubs at that level, so it’s not an impossibility to get to these levels, it’s “just” getting there. Obviously the commercial growth cannot be infinite. Us being so low after Ashley means our growth potential is much bigger than that of clubs already peaking.

[Keegans Export]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

The point you seem to be missing is that there are clubs at that level, so it’s not an impossibility to get to these levels, it’s “just” getting there. Obviously the commercial growth cannot be infinite. Us being so low after Ashley means our growth potential is much bigger than that of clubs already peaking.

Yes, but they didn't do it in five years and they aren't standing still so your original point of 40% year-on-year is wildly optimistic, "Basic mathematics" or otherwise. 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, SteV said:

Why more than Liverpool?

London. Revenues for tickets. One of the best catchment area for youth players in the world. Young fans from their heyday reaching peak earning potential.

 

Arsenal were the second biggest winners of the initial 20 year PL era IMO. Maybe it's an age thing but to me they will always be the premier London club.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

The point you seem to be missing is that there are clubs at that level, so it’s not an impossibility to get to these levels, it’s “just” getting there. Obviously the commercial growth cannot be infinite. Us being so low after Ashley means our growth potential is much bigger than that of clubs already peaking.

Only Liverpool are close to maximising their own potential (not counting City or Chelsea).

 

The others have sucked or don't win things. That impacts their revenues. A winning Man U would generate 20% more than they already do.

 

We don't have the "organic" potential as the big 6 in 2025. Neither do Villa. We don't have the history of success that's built a comparative fanbase. We don't have a great location comparatively for both revenue and youth development. We might have 1 of these over 1 or 2 but not both.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 17:52 by The College Dropout

[SteV]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

London. Revenues for tickets. One of the best catchment area for youth players in the world. Young fans from their heyday reaching peak earning potential.

 

Arsenal were the second biggest winners of the initial 20 year PL era IMO. Maybe it's an age thing but to me they will always be the premier London club.

I can see how their matchday revenue would be higher. As you say, London, and I’d assume there’s more corporate at the Emirates than at Anfield (even after the redevelopment).

 

But surely Liverpool are ahead in other aspects? Their global fanbase is probably only behind Man Utd, Madrid and Barca? Will be bigger than Arsenal’s anyway. And therefore does that not allow them to get bigger and better sponsorship deals?

 

The other stuff like player sales and CL money is a little bit cyclical, and may vary between time periods as to who is doing better.

[Jackie Broon]

6 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

From our collective memory - if they had seen this coming and put in sponsorships day 1, things could’ve been different.  
 

 

I guess everyone was just so keen to get the sale over the line. 
 

In retrospect, how this has all panned out was obvious. 
 

I also think significant relaxation of the rules is inevitable. But the PL will try and kick it down the road for as long as possible.  May end up being years still.  

 

I don't thimk there was ever an intention to put in massive sponsorships deals, Staveley talked about working within FFP in hrr day one interview. I think they have always wanted to be seen to be playing by the rules.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, SteV said:

I can see how their matchday revenue would be higher. As you say, London, and I’d assume there’s more corporate at the Emirates than at Anfield (even after the redevelopment).

 

But surely Liverpool are ahead in other aspects? Their global fanbase is probably only behind Man Utd, Madrid and Barca? Will be bigger than Arsenal’s anyway. And therefore does that not allow them to get bigger and better sponsorship deals?

 

The other stuff like player sales and CL money is a little bit cyclical, and may vary between time periods as to who is doing better.

1 league title in 35 years. This is only my opinion but if everything was equal, I would expect Arsenal to have higher revenues.

 

Liverpool is still a fine footballing city but London has by far and away the best youth players in England - arguably the best city in Europe. A London national team would match the rest of England combined. It's an unfair advantage that's difficult to replicate. Manchester and Birmingham are probably the next most fruitful.

27 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't thimk there was ever an intention to put in massive sponsorships deals, Staveley talked about working within FFP in hrr day one interview. I think they have always wanted to be seen to be playing by the rules.

In what world could we "play by the rules" and become league winners within 10 years like she said?

[TheBrownBottle]

6 hours ago, TRon said:

 

The Saudis don't strike me as being the type to bother much with due diligence, they probably wanted a club and left it up to Staveley to deliver. But if there really is no way to close the gap using your wealth as an advantage, I can only assume that they will run the club as an investment only, and tbh they can use the PSR/FFP stuff to do that without risking any of their own money. A sort of souped up Mike Ashley plan.

 

If they really want a top club, then they might consider selling us and buying one of the cartel clubs at some point. I don't think this will happen fWIW, but I wouldn't rule it out either. They can probably afford it more readily than anyone else.

100% mate, agreed on all points

[TheBrownBottle]

6 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

“Commercial performance, in the second year of a new commercial strategy, was strong across the board and revenues

were significantly improved to £218.3 million (2023 - £169.3 million).”

 

A 28,9% increase. Not to be sniffed at, but ours has grown more (40%) year on year since the takeover.

 

The other avenues of revenue increase are matchday, TV revenue and prize money. The former we probably wouldn’t want PIF to increase too much (who wants higher ticket prices) and the latter two are pretty much outside of PIF’s control.

I wouldn’t argue that, but if Arsenal’s increase at 29% p.a. and ours by 40% p.a. then we wouldn’t be catching them any time soon. 

[Unbelievable]

3 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

Yes, but they didn't do it in five years and they aren't standing still so your original point of 40% year-on-year is wildly optimistic, "Basic mathematics" or otherwise. 

The five years is projecting their commercial revenue at current growth rate vs ours mate. Never suggested the others are standing still. Just pointing out that as long as we grow faster, we’ll catch up.

 

Getting really tired of the negativity about this suggested lack of ambition on here in genetal like. Considering where we’ve come from, just what did people expect from new owners?

[Unbelievable]

55 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I wouldn’t argue that, but if Arsenal’s increase at 29% p.a. and ours by 40% p.a. then we wouldn’t be catching them any time soon. 

Faster than you’d think

[Keegans Export]

10 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

The five years is projecting their commercial revenue at current growth rate vs ours mate. Never suggested the others are standing still. Just pointing out that as long as we grow faster, we’ll catch up.

 

Getting really tired of the negativity about this suggested lack of ambition on here in genetal like. Considering where we’ve come from, just what did people expect from new owners?

In fairness, at no point did I question the owners ambition. 

 

I do question anyone who reckons we can continue to add 40% year-on-year without a major reshaping of the current rules. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Faster than you’d think

15 years by my reckoning.

 

Both outcomes of course have about 0% probability - NUFC will not be able to grow commercials 40% year on year.  Which deals are left to be done which would do that next season?  Our kit supplier, and both main kit sponsors are done.  

[r0cafella]

 

 

Worth a listen for those interested. 

 

 

[Unbelievable]

7 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

15 years by my reckoning.

 

Both outcomes of course have about 0% probability - NUFC will not be able to grow commercials 40% year on year.  Which deals are left to be done which would do that next season?  Our kit supplier, and both main kit sponsors are done.  

A little over 12 years.

 

I’d suggest the probability of ours growing 40% year on year is far higher than theirs growing 29% year on year, simply because our 40% is based on an actual 3 year period, whereas theirs is an outlier. In the same period (since our takeover) theirs grew by 8,4% (2022-22), 16,7% (22-23) and now 29,7%, or 19,1% p.a. on average.

 

We’ll catch them in the next decade.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

A little over 12 years.

 

I’d suggest the probability of ours growing 40% year on year is far higher than theirs growing 29% year on year, simply because our 40% is based on an actual 3 year period, whereas theirs is an outlier. In the same period (since our takeover) theirs grew by 8,4% (2022-22), 16,7% (22-23) and now 29,7%, or 19,1% p.a. on average.

 

We’ll catch them in the next decade.

It's very difficult to predict so far out with so many unknowns, sure we might we also might not. 

 

In order to maintain the gap they do not need to grow revenue at that rate though and of course such a gap gives them a nice buffer. What is important is obviously closing the revenue gap rate of growth isn't so important the raw numbers are and the difference between them. 

[Unbelievable]

15 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It's very difficult to predict so far out with so many unknowns, sure we might we also might not. 

 

In order to maintain the gap they do not need to grow revenue at that rate though and of course such a gap gives them a nice buffer. What is important is obviously closing the revenue gap rate of growth isn't so important the raw numbers are and the difference between them. 

Well, there’s only one way to close that gap and that is by growing faster than them (and that’s what we are trying to do and achieving so far).

[r0cafella]

38 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Well, there’s only one way to close that gap and that is by growing faster than them (and that’s what we are trying to do and achieving so far).

Using the Deloitte figures I've checked our gap to Arsenal. 

 

2022 the gap was 196.5m euro. 

2025 the gal is 344.7m euro. 

 

Now I understand these figures are cherry picked I just wanted a quick dirty point of reference. 

 

The takeaway is, despite our revenue growing aggressively the gap has almost doubled. This is what we are up against. 

[Unbelievable]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Using the Deloitte figures I've checked our gap to Arsenal. 

 

2022 the gap was 196.5m euro. 

2025 the gal is 344.7m euro. 

 

Now I understand these figures are cherry picked I just wanted a quick dirty point of reference. 

 

The takeaway is, despite our revenue growing aggressively the gap has almost doubled. This is what we are up against. 

You’ve cherry picked total revenue there I assume, not commercial revenue?

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

You’ve cherry picked total revenue there I assume, not commercial revenue?

Total revenue is the only relevant metric. 

[Sibierski]

PSR for me isn't about getting close to the levels of Arsenal/Manchester/Liverpool, it's about getting to levels of Spurs at a minimum.

 

Operating on sums that Spurs have, you should be regularly challenging top 4 and having the odd title challenge if you've got the right manager and set up. At those funds, you can sign players at the good end, maintain your superstars and have depth that's experienced. Beyond those levels, you are just simply overpaying to keep players, having your depth on bloated deals and can spend bigger sums on players that are no more a success strike. 

[Jackie Broon]

13 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

In what world could we "play by the rules" and become league winners within 10 years like she said?

 

I said to be seen to be playing by the rules, I don't think they were ever going to come in a throw in a £100m stadium sponsor deal through some company that they could say wasn't a related party, even if they could have at the time, and possibly could now.

 

But, what the PL tried to prevent with the unlawful amendments last year was the gradual inflation of associated party deals.

The rules as they stand now give us more room to do that.