Mr Popodopolous
-
Posts
41856 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Mr Popodopolous
-
-
Then with food and drink, merchandise etc it will rather depend if in-house or outsourced.
If the former pay staff and costs, keep profit- if the latter a pitch fee I imagine but costs and revenue go to the outsourced.
Security again, Agency fees and I dunno whether this is Agency in general or Security Agency especially.
https://www.bark.com/en/gb/security-guards/security-guard-prices/
In-house probably would be more affordable for this last bit?
-
Stadium company is consolidated within the Bristol City Holdings.
Profit it is hard to say really..one article I read suggested that 85% of the ticket revenue goes to the artist as an industry standard so there is that for a start.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-concert-ticket-money-go
This was early 2017 and there was something in The Times about Taylor Swift too a couple of days ago.
85% also comes up in this.
-
14 hours ago, AnAstonVillafan said:
Cruise through what too easily, exactly ?
You do appreciate that Bournemouth, Villa, even Newcastle came up and needed to improve their squads to compete and advance in the Premier League right ? Without a turnover of players,.... well see Luton, Huddersfield, Burnley for an example of what happens when you try to survive in this league with Championship quality players. You must upgrade, wisely or you will struggle.
According to most PL fans (and I'm starting to agree with them) FFP was designed to protect the top six and stop outsiders and emerging clubs from breaking into it. Note that Aston Villa and Newcastle are having their hands tied behind their backs just when they get into a position to challenge the established order.
We might as well watch the same crap year in year out. Watch City drop two billion an on average football club, dish out backhanders, not co-operate with investigations, hold back their accounts, while packing their trophy cabinet, playing the race card when questioned and blaming the Premier League when they get found out.In terms of Newcastle Mike Ashley was always very much within FFP. This was a bit of a golden legacy for any big spending owner, albeit they've now entered a period of large losses.
Under the new and present, future monitoring rules, the 2015 promotion for Bournemouth and the 2019 for Aston Villa might have been more challenging, oh the Fixed Assets loophole too being shut.
Brentford seem to have gone okay, Brighton too. Happy medium? I take your point that strengthening is a must, but the total spent isn't the be all and end all.
A risk of blocking new entrants is a problem for sure but at the same time the fluctuating views on P&S by AVFC have been interesting. I believe there are certain contingencies that clubs will have but my sympathy is tempered a bit by a quiet quiet January, but Aston Villa were a bit active..then they ask or request that the limits raised by £30m and tbh I thought it would have had more support than it did.
Not the magic 14 or more but more than it did.
I occasionally mention it, but UEFA FFP Regs seem to be tighter so even if the domestic ones raised, surely European entrants must align to these anyway?
The permitted UEFA limit is certainly lower and how the ratio feeds in vs PSR remains to be seen.
Hopefully Man City and Chelsea get theirs for sure. There is a Hearing for the former this Autumn and perhaps we will see a definitive outcome in 2024-25.
-
For the Championship there will be a working party to explore change by the end of 2024 but no change this upcoming season.
-
I remember it being in January before, so looking somewhat ahead here but AFCON 2025 should Kenya qualify and Vyner be picked will now be January 2026.
-
Clearly a few may want to use it themselves but I don't really see the grounds for confusion...
You can generate money from stadium, hotel on the footprint etc etc but you can't generate revenue. Is so very simple.
-
Seems the League tried to get the Fixed Assets loophole shut but only 11 voted in favour.
-
3 hours ago, Cowshed said:
Southampton's academy was very highly regarded. Merrywood
A selling point is that players at Cat 1 academies are supported not only by elite levels of coaching, elite facilities, and teams of specialists looking after player welfare, its the educational programs that are provided to support players. Southampton put players into private schooling while they are players, a Man City puts players into private schooling for a rolling period of two years, so if the player is released they still receive another year in private education.
Thank you, I've read many good things about the Southampton Academy. I do believe that.
The private education is an impressive fallback selling point although the richer the club and owners I guess, the more perks they can offer.
In your view should we subject to SL and financing, go for Cat 1 or are we fine as we are? I've always thought we should aspire towards it especially given FFP exempt.
-
How old was Maynard when he really for 12 to 18 months couldn't stop scoring. Older I think? Pre the injury, pre the attitude
I digress, apologies if already posted but Conway article.
-
In what world £105m plus Allowables constitutes financial prudence over 3 years is a different debate but raising it just raises the losses.
-
This is good news! 2 Cheers for financial prudence of sorts.
The Talksport link that said it was going to win seems to have been mistaken.
I honestly thought it would be a bit closer, there are lots of wealthy owners for one.
-
Wolves were the ones who brought the motion, presumably they voted for but anyone else?
-
39 minutes ago, Cowshed said:
The very simple answer is no. Bristol City's network of coaching and scouting and Southampton dId both does not extend in depth across the West Country.
Southampton have ran development centres, Soccer schools and development programmes including schools and juniors FC that helped identify talent and funnel it towards their academy, and the academy at Bath wasn't their full academy, it was used as a satellite keeping an eye on players, talent and training kids in shorter cycles (six weeks) v being signed fully to the parent academy.
It should also be noted that Southampton's academy was one of the best in Europe and offered kids free private schooling.
I have always heard that the Southampton Academy was well regarded.
How big a selling point is the Cat 1, or is that a red herring?
-
Six of the best? Assumed Man United might be too given the -£182m in aggregate pre tax losses across 2021-22 and 2022-23.
The lack of European revenue post Christmas due to a Group stage elimination, no major sales post Christmas..winning the FA Cup yes, but the Carabao Cup much earlier elimination there. With less gate revenue too, see also Europe perhaps.
Finishing 8th was it, prize money down several places worth.
-
The EFL site still shows Leicester as being under Embargo incidentally and fwiw.
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/28330111/leicester-premier-league-efl-deductions/
Apologies for the source but the journo, Matt Hughes appears to be freelance now. Seems to appear in a few papers..sounds like unprecedented measures could follow although part of me thinks any EFL sanctions should they arise should be parked for the day Leicester return.
-
Cat 1 Academy always helps I reckon, good selling point.
Look at Wharton, Blackburn Cat 1..suddenly risen the ranks sharply to the England squad yet not so long before it was about Scott potentially. Wonder if Cat 1 grounding played any role perception wise.
-
Apart from Man City and Chelsea who are the big two, Aston Villa, Bournemouth seem to cruise through too easily, Everton seem to lead a charmed life.
You can't dock Leicester or push for a major Leicester deduction plus Everton, Nottingham Forest Sanctions then raise the limits midstream. That's mental and I'd be forcefully challenging this if I was a compliant or punished club.
-
39 minutes ago, Rob26 said:
but wont they be bound by uefas harsher rules being that they are in the champions league? so voting to change this wont change anything for villa immediately (only when they drop out of europe)
so your essentially only helping yourself stay clean if you dont qualify for europe.
but if they are in breach on uefas rules they are not changing, so essentially they are helping other clubs catch them up
or am i getting mixed up with how the rules apply if your in europe and bpl?
I dont mind the amount changing to be honest, going by how much the amount is for the league I feel its not unreasonable to make the 3 year losses based on the guaranteed or average bpl tv money for the year, it would be there or there abouts from when its was setup and things have gone up in price and makes sense it should be linked to something.
There are perfectly valid Regulatory arguments to increase permitted experience and perhaps secure it better of course.
Escrow maybe?
The European levels are different and lower. It is:
*80% or 70% of turnover to football player and management wages, amortisation and impairment, sacking and compensation plus agents fees, can add transfer profit or 3 year average of it to relevant revenue.
*On top of which, losses limited to €60m plus Allowables in 3 years in general and €90m in 3 years plus Allowables if in notably strong financial health.
£51,054,900 and £76,589,554.63 respectively. According to a quick Google check.
Aston Villa lost in FFP Upper Loss limit terms £90m or so in 2022-23 alone, using their own figures.
-
When something similar happened in the Championship in 2019, the majority stayed firm. Albeit the stadium sale stuff etc was all ongoing.
-
I don't remember the rules potentially changing when Everton and Nottingham Forest, let alone Championship clubs ran aground.
Or when we saw a quiet and stable January window.
Or when we were in trouble. Or others.
-
Utter farce if true.
Aston Villa moan and cry a bit about expenditure limits and suddenly say they'll raise by £30m. Coincidentally perhaps a level that feeds into a forecast overspend..see when the Grealish underpinned loss dropped off there was a £120m pre tax pre adjusted loss as the first part of the 3 Year cycle.
This could have a knock on effect at our level too if passed because the 3 Year number is due to rise in % terms if the PL one moves.
£30m/£105m if passed..raise that by the same % of £39m??
Let alone the same % of those moving between the two.
-
-
1 hour ago, RedRoss said:
I personally am much more interested in content regarding the future and not the past frankly i.e the academy, transfer activity which was discussed. I'm sure most fans got more benefit from the podcast than if they chatted on for half of it talking about why we didn't offer a contract to MJ and why Mebude didn't work out. Not to say it's not important but pretty irrelevant now.
Accountability is important tbh.
Decision not to offer James was..Mebude less pressing, it didn't work but hopefully no great cost.
Take That gigs - Dosh
in Football Chat
Posted · Edited by Mr Popodopolous
It all helps but the costs of staging, revenue vs costs..
@Davefevs posted it.
AGL e.g. shouldn't IMO be making a loss!! That is more of a regular business than a football club. Wages % don't seem out of kilter but the Other Costs?
The Interest payable seems to be on an uptick too.