Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25 Author Report Share Posted January 25 In 5 weeks, the following are due out.. Cardiff, QPR, Stoke- albeit we have a fair idea on the latter. Plus the 6 months to December unless the takeover has impacted, for Birmingham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 Hmm, an eyebrow naming rights size.. Birmingham reportedly via their owners have some naming rights for the following. Knighthead themselves the sponsors. https://almajir.net/2024/01/26/bcfc-naming-rights-announced/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) Fiddle or fair value? The latter can be judged comparable by Championship standards club size, deal size etc. @Davefevs @downendcity @Hxj @ExiledAjax @chinapig Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) That £50,000 per position seems novel.. I take it to mean that if they finish 19th (they're 20th at present) they get £50,000 bonus. 18th, £100,000 etc. Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 https://www.bcfc.com/news/all/birmingham-city-announces-naming-rights-partnership-with-knighthead Document included within..bits of this seem fair, bits of this seem suspect. Fair Value regs? Unremarkable lower midtable Championship club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) This deal alone could basically double their Commercial Income from 2022-23...which is interesting. Perhaps even a factor of 1.4-1.5 for the full season of it despite no sustained improvement (hello Rooney) on the pitch. Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) QPR reportedly signed one for £1.2m over 3 years. https://www.sportindustry.biz/news-categories/news/qpr-stadium-to-be-renamed/ Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 I think it's ambitious and creative, but fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 Definitely ambitious and creative but the Naming Rights for Sheffield Wednesday annually was between £1-1.5m per annum albeit a few years ago now.. 5-10 and the QPR one at £1.2m between Autumn 2023 and end of 2025-26. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 Come on “Watches of Bath” - match that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) Intriguingly there was a little bit that referred to a future Sports Quarter in one of the documents/articles. If ours gets off the ground, then that could boost our Commercial potential. I would also argue we should attract in some ways higher Naming Rights than Birmingham given the newer Training Ground, the hefty non matchday use etc. This being a Related Party...is why I call elements into question. Then again they have the US exposure, Brady angle that we lack. Attendances higher for us this year, and the ast fee albeit that gap has narrowed. Whereas they are a bigger club historically. Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 On a side note, without wishing to stereotype.. Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham Forest, Sfoke, Wolves have what in common? Midlands clubs, either breaching or pushing the limits and rules. Worst region for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderEyed Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Intriguingly there was a little bit that referred to a future Sports Quarter in one of the documents/articles. If out a gets odd the ground that could boost our Commercial potential. I would also argue we should attract in some ways higher Mining rights than Birmingham given the newer Training Ground, the hefty non matchday use etc. This being a Related Party...is why I call elements into question. Then again they have the US exposure, Brady angle that we lack. Attendances higher for us this year, and the ast fee albeit that gap has narrowed. Whereas they are a bigger club historically. Did we strike gold under the Dolman or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said: Did we strike gold under the Dolman or something? Ha that would see us fine for FFP and a big spending spree for years to come! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Fiddle or fair value? The latter can be judged comparable by Championship standards club size, deal size etc. @Davefevs @downendcity @Hxj @ExiledAjax @chinapig well its down to the EFL to value, how much could they have got from someone else who is a genuine 3rd party will be the measuring stick I believe. now our last accounts showed about 7-8m of commerical and sponsership, we were first who used sponsership for our stadium name from cellnet in the 90s but since then never done it, so thats just for shirt sponsership (32bet/unibet and few smaller ones on there) and anything else deemed to be commerical, so what is included there? club shop, programmes and match day revenue outside of tickets? other sponsorship and advertising possibly money from holding concerts once or twice a year? but still lets exclude all the possibilities and just limit it to sponsorship, for a club which I'd argue is a higher profile, higher attendances, on tv more we should be getting more in sponsership than them. Now lets look at their books for 2022, that says what is included in commercial income clearly, so I wasn't way out on what is probably in our 7m+ They are not clearly last year more than 5m for everything. Chances are 5m a year is going to be hard to justify. To do so another club would have to be getting 5m a season for a similar deal, I doubt that is happening unless its someone who was relegated I think it may be a case of them starting high to try and get an agreement at a lower rate, rather than start at the lower rate and get knocked down further. I've zero issues with people doing these interclub transactions on the basis they are valued at fair market rate, as they are giving up that revenue to allow a company in their group to benefit. But you have to look at clubs in the exact same position for me to justify it. So if you are looking at a big boy like city and see what their sponsorship is worth each season, then compare it to what other clubs who have won the league and champions league are getting from a third party, if it lines up then its fair in my eyes as they could probally get that deal themselves but chose to keep it in house. if the nearest example of someone else doing the same was just getting 50m then I'd value it at the 50m plus any inflation from the point (if it was a few years ago). City have tidied this up in recent years, as the sponsorship deals are closely tied with Real Madrids if you see what they claim compared to what Real Madrids is, and I tend to agree this is a fair way to value it. who would we compare Birmingham's with who are play off chasers/midtable with 20k fan base? it must be pushing 10m+ with this deal Edited January 26 by Rob26 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 wow just seen the sponsership add ons. be interesting to see their total social media impressions to see how they have stacked that deal up they are probs typical add ons but at inflated prices I reckon, be interesting to see how much of the bonus payments they would trigger for social media based on 22/23's impressions 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 4 minutes ago, Rob26 said: well its down to the EFL to value, how much could they have got from someone else who is a genuine 3rd party will be the measuring stick I believe. now our last accounts showed about 7-8m of commerical and sponsership, we were first who used sponsership for our stadium name from cellnet in the 90s but since then never done it, so thats just for shirt sponsership (32bet/unibet and few smaller ones on there) and anything else deemed to be commerical, so what is included there? club shop, programmes and match day revenue outside of tickets? other sponsorship and advertising possibly money from holding concerts once or twice a year? but still lets exclude all the possibilities and just limit it to sponsorship, for a club which I'd argue is a higher profile, higher attendances, on tv more we should be getting more in sponsership than them. Now lets look at their books for 2022, that says what is included in commercial income clearly, so I wasn't way out on what is probably in our 7m+ They are not clearly last year more than 5m for everything. Chances are 5m a year is going to be hard to justify. To do so another club would have to be getting 5m a season for a similar deal, I doubt that is happening unless its someone who was relegated I think it may be a case of them starting high to try and get an agreement at a lower rate, rather than start at the lower rate and get knocked down further. I've zero issues with people doing these interclub transactions on the basis they are valued at fair market rate, as they are giving up that revenue to allow a company in their group to benefit. But you have to look at clubs in the exact same position for me to justify it. So if you are looking at a big boy like city and see what their sponsorship is worth each season, then compare it to what other clubs who have won the league and champions league are getting from a third party, if it lines up then its fair in my eyes as they could probally get that deal themselves but chose to keep it in house. if the nearest example of someone else doing the same was just getting 50m then I'd value it at the 50m plus any inflation from the point (if it was a few years ago). City have tidied this up in recent years, as the sponsorship deals are closely tied with Real Madrids if you see what they claim compared to what Real Madrids is, and I tend to agree this is a fair way to value it. who would we compare Birmingham's with who are play off chasers/midtable with 20k fan base? it must be pushing 10m+ with this deal Fair Value if a Related or Associated Party is the key tbh. This seems toppy. The conditional stuff seems interesting yes. I agree with you but they may well stand by their Valuation. Leicester again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Fair Value if a Related or Associated Party is the key tbh. This seems toppy. The conditional stuff seems interesting yes. I agree with you but they may well stand by their Valuation. yeah they can only go down and these things will be a lot of back and forth I reckon before they settle where they should be, just hope its not a new owner thinking they are smarter than the system, because most new owners tend to make mistakes/assumptions on what they can get away with with FFP that catch up with them Edited January 26 by Rob26 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 Just now, Rob26 said: yeah they can only go down and these things will be a lot of back and forth I reckon before they settle where they should be Birmingham fans are crowing but then don't they always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said: I think it's ambitious and creative, but fine. Hmm. I don't think it is fair value. Whilst the rest of it may currently be allowed, it shouldn't be allowed and I'd expect this loop hole to soon be closed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Birmingham fans are crowing but then don't they always. you always got to ignore fans when it comes to ffp, only the numbers, facts and intent are relevant fans are always going to think their club is under attack when their owners say they are fine or are under attack too. most fans never think about it from a legal or accounting purpose, and use the most irrelevant excuse that guilty people often use "what about them doing it as well?!?!" or "this club has been doing it as well and there fine so we are too" although it seems like its taken a very long time, I'm glad that it seems like EFL and BPL are finally trying to make these rules work and enforcing them I do wish there was more transparency, like FFP reports from every club with confidential details redacted so you knew where your club was, although clubs would probs use it against them for bids, but lets face it if they are not running the same numbers you guys are and estimating where clubs FFP positions are when doing business they are clearly missing a huge trick. I would like to see all punishments to also be laid out in the rules, so you breach so much etc then there is set fines and points, so no one can argue its not fair but maybe this would encourge clubs to break ffp on seasons where they are bumming around the mid table place but comfortably in the league still. Edited January 26 by Rob26 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Hmm. I don't think it is fair value. Whilst the rest of it may currently be allowed, it shouldn't be allowed and I'd expect this loop hole to soon be closed. The Loophole is already accounted for, the question is can Birmingham via an Independent Panel I'd required justify this in Fair Value terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 6 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Hmm. I don't think it is fair value. Whilst the rest of it may currently be allowed, it shouldn't be allowed and I'd expect this loop hole to soon be closed. it's already closed, the league can come in and say this is more like 2m max based its fair that a club can sell the sponsership to themselves, its money they are missing out on from someone else. but to make it fair I think you should need to show that you would of got that money elsewhere I think, by using other clubs as an example or by showing that others did offer the same through a tender process and you kept it in house. I don't think there is any examples Birmingham will have to justify 5-9m a season for the ground being renamed, but like I say they may be counting on getting something smaller but think they will get more than stating that value up front, if you try this as a club, just dont count on it bailing you out of ffp, try it on see if it works and confirmation its worked before you spend the money or you may well regret it Edited January 26 by Rob26 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob26 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) I'm wondering if big clubs with loads of academy's players may have a new scam for farming FFP budgets I was thinking about the transfer thats close to my heart as a boro fan for Cameron Archer. Sold to Sheff Utd for 18m, Aston Villa have a 18m buy out clause they are obligated to do on Sheffield Uniteds relegation. Sell for 18m, immediate 18m boost to their FFP position with him being accedemy owned, Sheff Utd were 2nd favourites for the drop at the time they went down. I feel only other clubs points deductions will save them in all honesty Villa have to buy him back at 18m, spread over 5 years, gives them 3.6m deduction of their ffp allowance every year over 5 years. nice way to farm FFP budgets don't your think? not that I think that was the intention (as sheff utd probs cant be trusted to pay or can't pay to keep him in the championship, and at the time archer probs did not want to be permantley tied to the club in the championship next season) he's not done that well in the premier league, but no doubt villa could get that money back for him if they have to buy him back again from a parachute payment club at the very least as he is best you will get in our league for sure. but these buy backs you can farm FFP allowance and effectively loan players to clubs while improving your FFP position massively when they are off your books. they have buybacks on other talents too like ramsay and heard its often what they want for young players over a certain value, mostly I reckon in case they turn out to be premier league gems, but there is definitely a new way to use these to farm genuine FFP allowances from third parties that may not have any scope to be revalued given they are done at market value Edited January 26 by Rob26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 Just now, Mr Popodopolous said: The Loophole is already accounted for, the question is can Birmingham via an Independent Panel I'd required justify this in Fair Value terms. All I can tell you and @W-S-M Seagull is that Birmingham obtained a third party valuation which was benchmarked to multiple other deals. If the EFL do question it then they will be presented with that valuation report. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: All I can tell you and @W-S-M Seagull is that Birmingham obtained a third party valuation which was benchmarked to multiple other deals. If the EFL do question it then they will be presented with that valuation report. That's fine, I saw that too from a quick search just now. OVG. Seems very toppy for the level. I wonder if they have any connections to Knighthead.. Seems so..at least a partnership. Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 EFL Valuer vs OVG, Independent Panel IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 To summarise.. Knighthead are the owners or now a key shareholder. 40% is it. They got an "Independent" Valuation from a club Partner. The only possible comparable I can think of is Bet365 and this was constructed in the PL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) Ooh Stoke accounts are out. Much improved but a lot depended on the Souttar sale being made in that season. You also have to subtract the Profit on Disposal of Fixed Assets post 2020-21. Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) Large underlying loss that though. Wage bill of £30m last season still. Still hard to say as to whether the Souttar sale was material to them passing FFP. Claims at their end that it wasn't but then surely you would hold out for the summer with 2 years left on his deal?? Edited January 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.