NUFC specific FFP/PSR discussion

[HayDen Traces]

2 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

Its been said before, but failure to qualify for CL may mean some of our elite start eyeing the door anyway regardless of the PSR situation. Even Europa League/Conference may not be enough, if they deem we're still not able to challenge for top 4 properly.

But I suspect theres a hope our commercial income can gain a signifigant boost this season which might offset some potential PSR issues next June anyway.

Suspect we may have a few deals lined up. Some high value if Citys case has gone well and rules change, and some a little more conservative if they haven't, but still more income.

 

 

 

This is partially what I'm alluding to in my post.

 

There could be a "make or break" element to the goals of this season being realised. Therefore by not achieving a top 4 position any financial shortfall is already accounted for as gentlemans agreements with Bruno, Isak could see them leave.

 

We just don't know for certain.

[r0cafella]

Just now, HayDen Traces said:

This is partially what I'm alluding to in my post.

 

There could be a "make or break" element to the goals of this season being realised. Therefore by not achieving a top 4 position any financial shortfall is already accounted for as gentlemans agreements with Bruno, Isak could see them leave.

 

We just don't know for certain.

Indeed we don’t know, but ultimately being compelled to sell would be selling from a position of weakness and that’s something we should seek to advise. 
 

Imagine letting Gordon go for 30m + Gomez that would have been an unmitigated disaster and a great demonstration as to why we have to cut out cloth. 
 

Basically we probably do have to player trade but we should be doing it from a position of strength and not because our backs are to wall with vultures circling 

[timeEd32]

17 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Re squad cost. 
 

I must admit, I haven’t read the detailed proposal as it’s not out yet and will be far too boring so if anyone else has and can correct me please do it’s most welcome. 
 

With this kind of system we will face a couple of immediate and obvious issues. 
 

1; deficits. As the rules are now you essentially have 3 years to balance the books due to it being a rolling 3 year period. As far as I’m aware this won’t be the case with squad cost and it will be a relatively simple did you comply with the ratio yes or no. The problem with this is if you say a 60m deficit one year and you sell a player for 50m and let’s say his salary is 10m then yes you’ve complied for that year. The issue comes in the next year whereby your still 50m over (it would be less as your amortisation for the player would also be removed) but I hope it illustrates the point. 
 

2; owner capital. the current rules allow for a certain amount of losses to be covered by owner investment, this is obviously something our owners have been doing, if this isn’t included this is yet another hit we will take in real terms. 

I’m not allowing myself to worry about this until we know the specifics. Maybe they’ll be phased in? Maybe penalties will be published and include escalating fines before points deductions? 

 

Sales would likely be averaged over a three year period like UEFA. 
 

This is the math I did for UEFA’s rules, which are much more immediately relevant (does not include Guehi):
 

Quote

 

For Cost Control, we had to have been under 90% wages & amortization for calendar year 2023, but we were likely between 85-90%. If we qualify for Europe this season then we’ll need to be under 70% for 2025/26, which is the first year of the fully phased in regulations. And the important note there is UEFA works on calendar years, so beginning January 1 our costs matter for next season (if we qualify, of course).

 

If we use 80% of the published wages to estimate 1st team/coaching wages (this is essentially what Swiss Ramble does) and use £30m as our player sales profit (average of 3 years, which we can increase with more sales this summer and next) then we are currently at 79.6%.

 

To get under 70% we need a net gain of about £45m(increased revenue and/or decreased costs). We may be ok drifting a bit above this number since there’s a fairly small monetary fine if you’re within 10% and a first time offender, but presumably it’s part of our planning.

 

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

I’m not allowing myself to worry about this until we know the specifics. Maybe they’ll be phased in? Maybe penalties will be published and include escalating fines before points deductions? 

 

Sales would likely be averaged over a three year period like UEFA. 
 

This is the math I did for UEFA’s rules, which are much more immediately relevant (does not include Guehi):
 

Yeah, I hear you about not worrying about this for now. 
 

in terms of punishments, I just don’t see them diverging from the current punishments. We’ve seen the league have multiple opportunities to soften the rules but all of them get voted down (see villas proposal for larger losses). 
 

anyways as you’ve said let’s see how it goes. 

[The Prophet]

Maguire, though, predicts much smaller losses in the next set of accounts, which will be revealed in January. Along with writing off money spent on the academy and infrastructure Newcastle are “not in a bad position”.

 

Indeed Maguire believes that taking into account amortisation – the process of spreading a transfer fee across contract length, which is how fees go on the books in the era of PSR – Newcastle can probably spend another £100m in the rest of this transfer window and remain compliant without the need for another fire sale.

 

In layman’s terms that would be Guehi for £70m on a five-year contract and another player valued at £30m (if they are signed on a five-year deal). The figure goes up depending on whether they sell players, which explains why they are open to offers for the likes of Kieran Trippier and Miguel Almiron.

 

“Newcastle did enough to get by for 2023-24 in PSR terms but won’t want to find themselves in a similar position,” Maguire tells i.

 

“The club do have significant upsides to factor in. The Adidas deal is on stream, they also got the benefits of being in the Champions League last season.

 

“They are trying to manage expectations of an impatient fanbase who want the big players coming in but once you go down that route you end up overpaying.

“If they sign Guehi at £70m on a five-year contract it’s on the books for PSR purposes as £14m a year after amortisation.

 

“They made a profit of £24m on Yankuba Minteh, Elliot Anderson’s fee was pure profit so they have cleared the decks there and if someone like Kieran Trippier goes they’ll be fine from a PSR point of view but they just don’t want to be seen to be paying a premium.

 

“They want to send out a signal to the market that yes, they’ve got something to pay but it’s not limitless and they’re going up in increments in terms of what they’re prepared to pay for Guehi and that’s the right thing to do.”

[timeEd32]

I made a comment the other day about how I wish we had still gotten Joao Pedro, but we maxed out our spend on Isak and then Gordon. Brighton had him signed before that financial year closed (it was reported in April or May if I remember correctly and then completed in June), so I'm not sure if we'd have been interested but we never really had a chance to go back. Obviously they took advantage of our PSR situation to get Minteh. This got me wondering if there's a pattern to their business.

 

Not counting loans or free transfers they have signed 26 players since 2022 (this includes some academy/youth signings). 10 of those players were signed in January and another 5 in June, so almost 60% of their recent signings have occurred outside of the July/August period. More than a third of their business done in the winter window.  

 

There could be a number of reasons for this -- take advantage of club's needing to move players on, possibly as a means of avoiding competition, circumstances somewhat -- but it seems like more than coincidence. 

 

Why this thread? We never want to repeat what happened in June again, but in the future I'd love for us to be operating from a position of strength in January and June. There are advantageous deals to be done.

[junkhead]

I had very high hopes for this window. Spent all summer fantasising which top class RW we're going to sign. The realisation that we're blowing the whole budget on imo very limited Guehi really shocked me.

 

After several nervous breakdowns (which left a trace in the forum) yesterday I found a Xanax blister and I watched Eddie's FLAWLESS press conference, as usual trying to read between the lines. He's calm about the situation, so I'm calm now too. Btw for a shy guy, what a monster this guy is in front of a microphone, effortlessly swerves every question, never says a word out of place.. this alone makes him perfect for England manager..

 

Aaanyway, regarding our summer, he said something along the lines that 'from the outside it might look easier but only people in the club have the full picture, the parameters and restrictions". Those words made me think of money and I think I FIGURED OUT why we're so passive this transfer window, why overpriced Guehi is our primary choice and the reason for our whole existence!! 

And by "figured out", I mean I read again @timeEd32's stellar detective work, the paragraphs on UEFA's 70% costs control rules.
 

Quote

For Cost Control, we had to have been under 90% wages & amortization for calendar year 2023, but we were likely between 85-90%. If we qualify for Europe this season then we’ll need to be under 70% for 2025/26, which is the first year of the fully phased in regulations. And the important note there is UEFA works on calendar years, so beginning January 1 our costs matter for next season (if we qualify, of course).

 

If we use 80% of the published wages to estimate 1st team/coaching wages (this is essentially what Swiss Ramble does) and use £30m as our player sales profit (average of 3 years, which we can increase with more sales this summer and next) then we are currently at 79.6%.

 

To get under 70% we need a net gain of about £45m (increased revenue and/or decreased costs). We may be ok drifting a bit above this number since there’s a fairly small monetary fine if you’re within 10% and a first time offender, but presumably it’s part of our planning.

It seems that without selling, we literally can't afford paying the contracts of two new high-quality players. Even if the transfer fees are £25mil each for example. But we can afford ONE expensive high quality player, as long as he doesn't command a huge contract. That explains why we're not so fussed about the inflated fee. 

 

So if we add all the requirements for this single player:

- affordable / on the market
- position CB - Rightly or wrongly Eddie thinks that's top priority. Despite my obsession with left-footed RWs I have to agree with him, it's too risky going into a season with our current CBs (but we can manage)

- young, motivated to play for us, room to improve

- athletic, not prone to injuries, calm with the ball at his feet

- low-risk - experienced in the PL, no known betting history

 

Well, the result of that is Guehi. 

 

So after spending hours on here criticising his aerial ability and shit, crying about Milenkovic for £12mil .. I'm now prepared to accept Guehi, even though he hasn't even signed yet.. Even if he struggles initially, Eddie and the guys will teach him, we're looking long-term. It's not like we have the money for more CBs, so Guehi WILL be a success, even if Eddie has to fight him. 

 

So all panic extinguished for now over here, except maybe the unknowns about our strategic vision, which I discussed earlier in this thread.

Imo, there's every indication that PIF regards this as a long-term investment - 10, 15, 20, 25 years. So hopefully we continue with the same pace (annual revenue growth of 40%), continue with the correct strategic/business decisions, like most of Amanda's were. If that's in place, it's all about the football qualities and preparation and imo we're in very safe hands there with Eddie Howe.

 

 

Edited August 28 by junkhead

[ChrisMcQuillan]

2 minutes ago, junkhead said:

I had very high hopes for this summer. Spent all summer fantasising which top class RW we're going to sign. The realisation that we're blowing the whole budget on imo very limited Guehi really shocked me.

 

After several nervous breakdowns (which left a trace in the forum) yesterday I found a Xanax blister and I watched Eddie's FLAWLESS press conference, as usual trying to read between the lines. He's calm about the situation, so I'm calm now too. Btw for a shy guy, what a monster this guy is in front of a microphone, effortlessly swerves every question, never says a word out of place.. this alone makes him perfect for England manager..

 

Aaanyway, regarding our summer, he said something along the lines that 'from the outside it might look easier but only people in the club have the full picture, the parameters and restrictions". Those words made me think of money and I think I FIGURED OUT why we're so passive this transfer window, why overpriced Guehi is our primary choice and the reason for our whole existence!! 

And by "figured out", I mean I read again @timeEd32's stellar detective work, the paragraphs on UEFA's 70% costs control rules.
 

It seems that without selling, we literally can't afford paying the contracts of two new high-quality players. Even if the transfer fees are £25mil each for example. But we can afford ONE expensive high quality player, as long as he doesn't command a huge contract. That explains why we're not so fussed about the inflated fee. 

 

So if we add all the requirements:

- affordable / on the market
- position CB - Rightly or wrongly Eddie thinks that's top priority. Despite my obsession with left-footed RWs I have to agree with him, it's too risky going into a season with our current CBs (but we can manage)

- young, motivated to play for us, room to improve

- athletic, not prone to injuries, calm with the ball at his feet

- low-risk - experienced in the PL, no known betting history

 

Well, the result of that is Guehi. 

 

So after spending hours on here criticising his aerial ability and shit, crying about Milenkovic for £12mil .. I'm now prepared to accept Guehi, even though he hasn't even signed yet.. Even if he struggles initially, Eddie and the guys will teach him, we're looking long-term. It's not like we have the money for more CBs, so Guehi WILL be a success, even if Eddie has to fight him. 

 

So all panic extinguished for now over here, except maybe the unknowns about our strategic vision, which I discussed earlier in this thread.

Imo, there's every indication that PIF regards this as a long-term investment - 10, 15, 20, 25 years. So hopefully we continue with the same pace (annual revenue growth of 40%), continue with the correct strategic/business decisions, like most of Amanda's were. If that's in place, it's all about the football qualities and preparation and imo we're in very safe hands there with Eddie Howe.

Any of that Xanax going spare?

[tarie4]

On 08/08/2024 at 11:19, Unbelievable said:

 

The question about our long term strategy is an interesting one. I think original statements about competing within five years were over-optimistic, but Staveley always laboured the point that PIF are patient, long term investors, and with the 2034 World Cup being in Saudi Arabia, I imagine the more realistic ambition is to have us up there by that time, and also to have their league and national team at a level where it is seen as competitive with European and South American leagues, and the leading competition in the Middle East. Maybe a few years earlier in line with vision 2030. In any case, looks like they're targeting the next decade to really make a splash on the world stage, and we are probably a small cog in that machine.

 

As for how our owners plan to get to "number one", perhaps unrealistically, it looks like they prioritise doing things the "right" way and avoiding scrutiny where they can (they get enough already simply for being who they are). That means being compliant with whatever regulations are in place, but at the same time probably lobbying hard behind the scenes for those regulations to be changed in order to allow us to compete more fairly with the current biggest clubs in England and Europe. We got off to a great start with CL qualification last year, were unfortunate this past season and if we can get back on track and qualify for CL next season it is probably not unrealistic to achieve our 30% revenue increase year on year under our own steam, before and without related party sponsorship deals being responsible for the majority of it. As we all knew and felt before Ashley finally sold up, the potential for this club under its own steam is to compete with the top six. Our commercial revenue flatlined for 14 years while all our competitors doubled and tripled theirs. We suffered pathetic ownership and it set us back more than a decade. Consider the financial and political might of our current owners however, and we can expect to compete long term, but it will definitely take more time than the originally muted five year plan.

 

As you say, other clubs are also developing and growing, so we face an uphill battle. So far most big decisions have been spot on, and no doubt there is more to come. Let's enjoy the ride as much as we will the destination if and when we finally get there.   

"5 to 10 years" was the direct quote from Amanda. 

[macphisto]

On 28/08/2024 at 13:54, junkhead said:

Hopefully we continue with the same pace (annual revenue growth of 40%), continue with the correct strategic/business decisions, 

We will not grow substantially as a club without initial investment well above current levels. Won't happen. why would sponsors put more money into what is essentially a mid-table club? 

[TheBrownBottle]

On 28/08/2024 at 16:54, junkhead said:

I had very high hopes for this window. Spent all summer fantasising which top class RW we're going to sign. The realisation that we're blowing the whole budget on imo very limited Guehi really shocked me.

 

After several nervous breakdowns (which left a trace in the forum) yesterday I found a Xanax blister and I watched Eddie's FLAWLESS press conference, as usual trying to read between the lines. He's calm about the situation, so I'm calm now too. Btw for a shy guy, what a monster this guy is in front of a microphone, effortlessly swerves every question, never says a word out of place.. this alone makes him perfect for England manager..

 

Aaanyway, regarding our summer, he said something along the lines that 'from the outside it might look easier but only people in the club have the full picture, the parameters and restrictions". Those words made me think of money and I think I FIGURED OUT why we're so passive this transfer window, why overpriced Guehi is our primary choice and the reason for our whole existence!! 

And by "figured out", I mean I read again @timeEd32's stellar detective work, the paragraphs on UEFA's 70% costs control rules.
 

It seems that without selling, we literally can't afford paying the contracts of two new high-quality players. Even if the transfer fees are £25mil each for example. But we can afford ONE expensive high quality player, as long as he doesn't command a huge contract. That explains why we're not so fussed about the inflated fee. 

 

So if we add all the requirements for this single player:

- affordable / on the market
- position CB - Rightly or wrongly Eddie thinks that's top priority. Despite my obsession with left-footed RWs I have to agree with him, it's too risky going into a season with our current CBs (but we can manage)

- young, motivated to play for us, room to improve

- athletic, not prone to injuries, calm with the ball at his feet

- low-risk - experienced in the PL, no known betting history

 

Well, the result of that is Guehi. 

 

So after spending hours on here criticising his aerial ability and shit, crying about Milenkovic for £12mil .. I'm now prepared to accept Guehi, even though he hasn't even signed yet.. Even if he struggles initially, Eddie and the guys will teach him, we're looking long-term. It's not like we have the money for more CBs, so Guehi WILL be a success, even if Eddie has to fight him. 

 

So all panic extinguished for now over here, except maybe the unknowns about our strategic vision, which I discussed earlier in this thread.

Imo, there's every indication that PIF regards this as a long-term investment - 10, 15, 20, 25 years. So hopefully we continue with the same pace (annual revenue growth of 40%), continue with the correct strategic/business decisions, like most of Amanda's were. If that's in place, it's all about the football qualities and preparation and imo we're in very safe hands there with Eddie Howe.

 

 

 

The revenue spurt wasn’t the result of any business genius - it was the result of Ashley flatlining commercial income to the point that it was lower in 2021 than it was when he bought the club in 2007.  That growth was never sustainable.  We already haven’t grown at that pace in terms of revenues - everything points to revenue basically flatlining this season.  When the books are published for 23/24 they’re unlikely to show an increase of much more the 25%, tops - and that’s with CL money coming in.

 

There’s been no significant commercial deals coming in, ticket prices have not gone up by anything like enough to cover the gap (nor could they), and there’s no European football boost.  The likely outcome is that this season we fall even further behind the pack that we’re meant to be chasing.

 

A new ground with a big sponsorship deal, and a new training ground (and training kit) the same, are the two big income boosts now available to the club.  If the club announces that they’re just extending the Gallowgate, then we’ve got our answer from the owners as to what the real ambitions are - regardless of the words they’ve come out with.

 

edit: NB Guehi likely wasn’t within budget - they would have had to do some selling to cover the signing before 30 June next year. 

 

 

Edited August 30 by TheBrownBottle

[Unbelievable]

21 minutes ago, macphisto said:

We will not grow substantially as a club without initial investment well above current levels. Won't happen. why would sponsors put more money into what is essentially a mid-table club? 

 

Disagree. We have so much headroom in our commercial revenue. As a team we are there or thereabouts with some of the "top six" clubs, in terms of commercial revenue they still blow us out of the water, mainly thanks to 15 years of Ashley not being bothered in the slightest to make us look appealing to corporations as a commercial partner. Instead of a skeleton crew we now have a commercial team with some of the best in the business, and it will bear fruit.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

 

Disagree. We have so much headroom in our commercial revenue. As a team we are there or thereabouts with some of the "top six" clubs, in terms of commercial revenue they still blow us out of the water, mainly thanks to 15 years of Ashley not being bothered in the slightest to make us look appealing to corporations as a commercial partner. Instead of a skeleton crew we now have a commercial team with some of the best in the business, and it will bear fruit.

Where’s the headroom, then?  The biggest sponsorship deals a club can get are: stadium (not an option for us); kit manufacturer (just signed a deal with adidas); shirt sponsor (already done); sleeve sponsor (already done); training ground and kit sponsor (still on the table)

 

The commercial team has been in place for two years and hasn’t yet managed to get a training kit sponsor onboarded - but even with that, we’ve already taken the the biggest commercial deals likely to be made.  

[FCB]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Where’s the headroom, then?  The biggest sponsorship deals a club can get are: stadium (not an option for us); kit manufacturer (just signed a deal with adidas); shirt sponsor (already done); sleeve sponsor (already done); training ground and kit sponsor (still on the table)

 

The commercial team has been in place for two years and hasn’t yet managed to get a training kit sponsor onboarded - but even with that, we’ve already taken the the biggest commercial deals likely to be made.  

Official grass sponsor? Seat sponsor? Plane sponsor? Coach sponsor?

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, FCB said:

Official grass sponsor? Seat sponsor? Plane sponsor? Coach sponsor?

 

Yep, there’s a lot that could (and should) have been done - there’s no doubt several millions still out there for all kinds of sponsorship.

 

The problem is that it’s not going to be enough to really do any significant gap-closing against the sky six.

 

Our revenues are now roughly where they would be if Ashley had competently run us as a going concern.  What would now be needed is a steroid injection - otherwise, we’re pretty much coming up to what NUFC would be able to bring in under its own steam.

 

Let’s hope something genuinely significant is going to happen - if the promises made by Al-Rumayyan and Staveley were real, then this is the moment when we find out.  What’s been done to date could have been done by pretty much any competent NUFC owner. 

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Where’s the headroom, then?  The biggest sponsorship deals a club can get are: stadium (not an option for us); kit manufacturer (just signed a deal with adidas); shirt sponsor (already done); sleeve sponsor (already done); training ground and kit sponsor (still on the table)

 

The commercial team has been in place for two years and hasn’t yet managed to get a training kit sponsor onboarded - but even with that, we’ve already taken the the biggest commercial deals likely to be made.  

 

Not sure if you are entirely serious. This is how our revenue stacks up:

 

 

Our commercial revenue is less than a quarter of the "top six" clubs. If we manage to lift our overall sporting profile by consistently competing at the top end of the table (let's say qualify for European football) that will raise our commercial profile and with the right people in place get us to improve existing deals and bring in better replacement deals. I don't think it fanciful at all that as a club we increase our commercial revenue by over 50% year on year. Even in a saturated market we should get closer to what the established top clubs are getting as and when our profile becomes more attractive.

 

 

Edited August 30 by Unbelievable
As macphisto pointed out, revenue follows results on the pitch, hence "by" instead of "to"

[macphisto]

16 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Disagree. We have so much headroom in our commercial revenue. As a team we are there or thereabouts with some of the "top six" clubs, in terms of commercial revenue they still blow us out of the water, mainly thanks to 15 years of Ashley not being bothered in the slightest to make us look appealing to corporations as a commercial partner. Instead of a skeleton crew we now have a commercial team with some of the best in the business, and it will bear fruit.

I don't really know the purpose of the Commercial Team? We all know that to grow initially we'll need inflated deals by PIF-related companies like Man City did in the past That's the whole rationale when people on here complain about the related-parties FFP rules.

 

It's only when we're established at the top of the table that we'll be able to switch to real sponsors willing to pay for big deals. Maybe the Commercial Team is in place now for when we get to that stage? 

 

I might sound harsh but all our major sponsors are Saudi companies that would have literally taken one call from someone at PIF to put in place. I even wouldn't be surprised if our Adidas deal isn't somehow indirectly linked to Adidas sponsoring most Saudi League teams now (favour for a favour). 

 

Their only "notable" achievement is the Stack. 

[LFEE]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Not sure if you are entirely serious. This is how our revenue stacks up:

 

 

Our commercial revenue is less than a quarter of the "top six" clubs. If we manage to lift our profile to consistently compete at the top end of the table (let's say qualify for European football) that will raise our commercial profile and with the right people in place get us to improve existing deals and bring in better replacement deals. I don't think it fanciful at all that as a club we increase our commercial revenue by over 50% year on year. Even in a saturated market we should get closer to what the established top clubs are getting as and when our profile becomes more attractive.

Would also help if we got some home cup draws. People will laugh but an extra 8 home games instead of away could’ve made a bit of difference this window.

[macphisto]

8 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Our commercial revenue is less than a quarter of the "top six" clubs. If we manage to lift our profile to consistently compete at the top end of the table (let's say qualify for European football) that will raise our commercial profile and with the right people in place get us to improve existing deals and bring in better replacement deals. I don't think it fanciful at all that as a club we increase our commercial revenue by over 50% year on year. Even in a saturated market we should get closer to what the established top clubs are getting as and when our profile becomes more attractive.

Is that not the wrong way around? Should it not be consistently compete at the top end of the table to lift our profile? We'll only consistently compete through large investment, there's no other way. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Not sure if you are entirely serious. This is how our revenue stacks up:

 

 

Our commercial revenue is less than a quarter of the "top six" clubs. If we manage to lift our profile to consistently compete at the top end of the table (let's say qualify for European football) that will raise our commercial profile and with the right people in place get us to improve existing deals and bring in better replacement deals. I don't think it fanciful at all that as a club we increase our commercial revenue by over 50% year on year. Even in a saturated market we should get closer to what the established top clubs are getting as and when our profile becomes more attractive.

I’m aware of how it stacks up - and our commercial revenue won’t go up by 50% this year never mind year on year. 
 

You need to look into how those commercial revenues are made up.  Arsenal are the lowest of them - their ground and shirt sponsorship are £50m per year (our deal is already done - for half this); their adidas deal is £60m per season (almost double ours); sleeve sponsorship £10m - so there’s £120m of those commercial revenues.  So the remainder is around £50m - these are the other partnering and commercial deals, or around 30% of the total commercial revenue.  If we managed to get deals in line with this, then our commercial revenues would cap out at around £100m.

 

The other problem is that ‘becoming more attractive’ requires success on the pitch at a minimum - and to do this, you need to be able to sign top players.  But we’re hampered by the inability to boost income to allow this to happen.

 

Which is why something quite dramatic needs to occur - ‘organic’ growth from here would require either perfect decision making or perfect luck. 

[TheBrownBottle]

9 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Would also help if we got some home cup draws. People will laugh but an extra 8 home games instead of away could’ve made a bit of difference this window.

Wouldn’t have made that much difference in the FA Cup last season - the gate receipts are shared 50/50, and we played the Mackems and Man City, both games having big crowds.  League Cup - yep, it would have brought in an extra million or two if they were all home ties. 

[timeEd32]

I think you're both saying things that are true but possibly talking in different timeframes and with different levels of optimism.

 

We are miles behind on commercial, matchday, and player trading revenue which means there are many opportunities to grow. We're also doing a decent job of establishing ourselves in "the next two" group with Villa, which provides some safety, and I think that gap to the rest will continue to grow.

 

I think the near term concern is we've done most of the easy things, we know the stadium problem can't be solved overnight, and those ahead of us aren't standing still. It's not inconceivable that in the next year or two the gap to the big 4 or 6 actually widens again unless we have some big moves coming soon.

[Unbelievable]

54 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Is that not the wrong way around? Should it not be consistently compete at the top end of the table to lift our profile? We'll only consistently compete through large investment, there's no other way. 

 

Apologies, I phrased that wrong; should have said "by" instead of "to". As you say by competing at the top end of the table (which this squad should be capable of) that should raise our commercial profile and result in improved commercial revenue, which in turn should lead to more investment on the pitch (seeing as investment is linked to revenue by reason of PSR rules).

[r0cafella]

Glad to set people coming into contact with reality. The rules have fucked US and we’ve done nothing to challenge them. It’s pretty much the start and the end of things. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The rules were brought in to stop us. You think if we did a chelsea we'd get away with it?