How does the German system work financially because their players will still be getting monster wages and their TV deal can't be as good as ours and their ticket income will be smaller even with the bigger crowds is it because they have massive sponsorship deals bigger than ours or more generous owners what is the difference
How does the German system work financially because their players will still be getting monster wages and their TV deal can't be as good as ours and their ticket income will be smaller even with the bigger crowds is it because they have massive sponsorship deals bigger than ours or more generous owners what is the difference
Hi Oohaah.
My understanding is that generally wages at German clubs are lower than at English clubs. Check the squads and you will see relatively larger numbers of players from the Balkans and Central Europe. But generally everyone in Germany is OK with this. They look at our league, where no-marks like DJ Campbell can command £22,000, and go away shaking their heads at the island monkeys' madness. The salaries are kept in check because, firstly the TV money has been a lot lower in total than here, although it is catching up, and secondly - and for me this is crucial - it is spread out far more evenly than in England and has been across two Divisions for several years. Now there is Bundesliga Three, and I assume that this also involves a spread of the money further down the league.
Bayern has been the exception. Bayern have complained for years that the relatively low TV money has disadvantaged them in Europe. However everyone else hates them so they didn't get their way on TV. And even Bayern is owned by its members. As a result of being denied on the TV share, they have played a brilliant commercial game. Freed from the cost of building their spanking stadium, (which they share with TSV), they have a great P&L, and as a result they were able to sell just a 9% stake to (I think) Audi for a huge amount of money, which they then spent wisely. Unfortunately (I was discussing this just last night with my client who is a Frankfurt fan and watched their 0-4 spanking by Bayern last weekend), there's a general feeling that the Bundesliga is now all about the race for second place, and no-one knows how to cut down Bayern in any way which is fair.
But I repeat, the TV money is not the reason for Bayern's strength. Bundesliga 2 is in good nick. Clubs are not in danger of going bust. FC Koln, after several years in B2, finally dragged themselves back into B1. They are 100% sold out in their 50k stadium the whole season. It's not about a billionaire owner. It's about the city of Cologne with its special sense of itself, its own dialect and character.
The other thing to mention about Germany is that most top clubs don't own their own stadia, and several of them did benefit from World Cup 2006. So most of them including Bayern don't have debt related to stadium investment hanging around their necks.
I think those are the main points. If I didn't make it clear enough, just shout. (what I cannot get is exact numbers for the TV deal or its share, this is extremely difficult to get from any country, as I found out when looking at Ujpest. But I'm on solid ground with the general principals of it)
Stu, are you asking as a challenge to my previous post? If so could you perhaps expand on your point? I don't mind answering but it will take a bit of work.
I'm just wondering if it's a fair comparison, do the Germans have the same density of teams we do, all fighting for the same support base.
Ok I will try and get back with a proper answer, which might surprise people. It involves considering the Ruhr area as comparable to London. It was brought home to me while planning a mates weekend involving German football. We could be based in Cologne and actually go watch at least three other top Bundesliga sides from there. If we could get tickets, that is.
Just read an interesting article on CAFC OS and thought the last two paragraphs put everyone's minds at ease.
Addicks fans have nothing to fear in respect of sanctions, with the club generating an FFP loss of £2.6m for the 2013/14 season and a similar level of loss forecast for the 2014/15 season.
Financial stability remains paramount in the club’s future strategy despite these rule changes.
Very interesting An additional £700k for each club...not even a million! CAFC "bitterly disappointed" Some clubs voted "yes" because they don't believe in limits and some because they were afraid of losing the £3m solidarity money in 2016. Our FFP losses less than 3m so no equity investment required. This is broadly in line with the supporters Trust forecast made in October 2013 and is some £2m better than the year before. They also forecast a similar result this season. Take away the cup run which you can't forecast for this season but add the university sponsorship and new catering deal and that means revenue and expenditure is roughly flat. So we have a better, younger, more valuable team touching the play-offs for the same cost as a bottom six squad. Imagine how good we could be if we increase budgets a little?! This tells us more than any soundbite or ITK poster about CAFC direction. As @Mundell Fleming posted, just because the rules change why assume cafc changes tack? Having said that CAFC has the potential to spend big in January if results between now and then warrant that.
Very interesting An additional £700k for each club...not even a million! CAFC "bitterly disappointed" Some clubs voted "yes" because they don't believe in limits and some because they were afraid of losing the £3m solidarity money in 2016. Our FFP losses less than 3m so no equity investment required. This is broadly in line with the supporters Trust forecast made in October 2013 and is some £2m better than the year before. They also forecast a similar result this season. Take away the cup run which you can't forecast for this season but add the university sponsorship and new catering deal and that means revenue and expenditure is roughly flat. So we have a better, younger, more valuable team touching the play-offs for the same cost as a bottom six squad. Imagine how good we could be if we increase budgets a little?! This tells us more than any soundbite or ITK poster about CAFC direction. As @Mundell Fleming posted, just because the rules change why assume cafc changes tack? Having said that CAFC has the potential to spend big in January if results between now and then warrant that.
Did we not have any shirt sponsorship or catering income last season, then? You are significantly overstating the marginal impact and ignoring the fall in season ticket revenue. The main change to the picture I would guess, is a reduced player and academy budget (although the latter would not affect FFP). And we are nowhere near breakeven on an operating basis.
It is good to see such a lengthy article about this on the club website, it is the clearest explanation I have read so far. Mind you I want all this malarkey to result in points gained for us. Score goals, win matches, get points. I am therefore hoping that the authorities give our league rivals a kicking if they have broken the rules, and that feeds through to weaker teams for them, stronger squad for us.
Not sure what as as a club were expecting to be honest, football is and always will be in a lot of countries revolved around money, attendances will drop hugely if teams are scraping the barrel to oblige by FFP. The vote was always heading one way, we are the minority. You work with the tools, rules & surroundings you are given.
Very interesting An additional £700k for each club...not even a million! CAFC "bitterly disappointed" Some clubs voted "yes" because they don't believe in limits and some because they were afraid of losing the £3m solidarity money in 2016. Our FFP losses less than 3m so no equity investment required. This is broadly in line with the supporters Trust forecast made in October 2013 and is some £2m better than the year before. They also forecast a similar result this season. Take away the cup run which you can't forecast for this season but add the university sponsorship and new catering deal and that means revenue and expenditure is roughly flat. So we have a better, younger, more valuable team touching the play-offs for the same cost as a bottom six squad. Imagine how good we could be if we increase budgets a little?! This tells us more than any soundbite or ITK poster about CAFC direction. As @Mundell Fleming posted, just because the rules change why assume cafc changes tack? Having said that CAFC has the potential to spend big in January if results between now and then warrant that.
Did we not have any shirt sponsorship or catering income last season, then? You are significantly overstating the marginal impact and ignoring the fall in season ticket revenue. The main change to the picture I would guess, is a reduced player and academy budget (although the latter would not affect FFP). And we are nowhere near breakeven on an operating basis.
1) Who needs break even operating position?That is an arbitrary position which requires cuts! Total losses, after player sales are lower than at any time since we were relegated from the FAPL. I am repeating the chief finance officer quote that losses are down and stay the same this year. 2)These losses have been dropping by £1m each and every year from £7m down to £6m and now £5m and the club have stated they are staying at this level 3) and yet performance on the pitch is better - on the same budgets! Imagine where we could go if they added £1m to the budget! 4) The calibre of our top players is such that one player sale might push us into surplus.To be clear, I am not advocating any player sales. Just stating that in my view cafc is at long last sustainable. 5) Of course we had shirt sponsorship before and the old sponsors are on the back of the shirt, probably at a reduced rate? But rumour has it that the new deal has really "sweated the asset" and it is by no means a "marginal" contribution. 6)Likewise the new catering outsourcing deal will reduce turnover (vanity) and increase profitability (sanity). Again rumour has it that this is not marginal and is in fact a step change. These two items combined will make a material contribution to CAFC sustainability.
Perhaps Airman you should use your journalistic prowess to secure the numbers on the sponsorship and catering before dismissing the deals as marginal?
Overall the trust forecast 5m losses last year and David Joyes has confirmed the accuracy plus the intention to maintain that loss number this season.Playing budget cuts occurred in summer 2013 when Ricardo Fuller and others were not renewed and the budget came down by a possible £1.5m? Given the calibre of player wearing our shirt today perhaps the budget was adequate but the players weren't?
Where I think most would agree is that if losses are lower than before and we are a tiny distance away from the play-offs, then it is worth investing not speculating in acquiring more young talent which will help us push on AND might be sold in the future to pay the bills in the possible scenario that we make the play-offs but not win them.
It is good to see such a lengthy article about this on the club website, it is the clearest explanation I have read so far. Mind you I want all this malarkey to result in points gained for us. Score goals, win matches, get points. I am therefore hoping that the authorities give our league rivals a kicking if they have broken the rules, and that feeds through to weaker teams for them, stronger squad for us.
Totally agree! Now our squad is fit again let's see if we can repeat the Reading performance and result vs mid-table (and lower) teams. Local press reports suggest Forest, Blackburn and Bolton may suffer a player registration embargo this January so they have to complete the season with today's squad.
Let us see what teeth the football league have come January. Which will be the first club to take them to court if they fine or put an embargo on them?
Let us see what teeth the football league have come January. Which will be the first club to take them to court if they fine or put an embargo on them?
QPR have already said they will fight the inevitable fine. Perhaps we should be more interested in Forest and Blackburn because they are competitors in the top half and for the same player pool?
Thanks Prague , I just don't fully comprehend how Bayern can have the likes of Robben and co playing for them when most of them must all be big big earners unless there are tax breaks available over there
Thanks Prague , I just don't fully comprehend how Bayern can have the likes of Robben and co playing for them when most of them must all be big big earners unless there are tax breaks available over there
Definitely no tax breaks. The whole footballing community hates Bayern, there would be uproar. There doesn't even seem to be much evidence that they got state aid to build the Allianz arena (although the State funded the infrastructure). They seem to be a very well run business, their revenues making them the 4th biggest in the world, even though, as the Wikipedia page mentions, their marketing is focused on Germany (not Thailand). It's a very healthy business.They have 220,000 members (who are the 51% owners) They funded the arena by selling a 9% share to Adidas, and then another 9% to Audi. TSV nearly went bust because they were also supposed to fund 50% of the build costs. Bayern bought them out, so Bayern now own the Allianz, while getting useful rental money from TSV.
I'm just wondering if it's a fair comparison, do the Germans have the same density of teams we do, all fighting for the same support base.
Hi Stu, I get your point, Germany is a big country without a dominant capital such as London. True. However those two maps are quite nifty, (Unfortunately separate for each of the two top leagues)
So take a look at the area between Cologne and Dortmund. Its heaving with heavyweight clubs. You can get from Cologne to Dortmund in the same time (and a lot less hassle) as it takes to get from Greenwich borough to Spurs or Chelsea. Dortmund to Schalke? Quicker than the Valley to Selhurst, thats for sure. So in that area the competition is intense, but they are packing em in. We gave up on getting tickets for our weekend and will probably go to Berlin. You can get in to see Hertha because they play in the Olympic stadium and get "only" 40,000.
So assuming people support their 'local' team German clubs seem to have a massive advantage over English teams, although I'm making some assumptions with regards to population.
It's hard to know quite why German football appears to have been so successful. However, while the ownership rules may have been helpful, I suspect they are as much symbolic as truly significant.
The key difference between England and Germany appears to be the role of the German FA which effectively controls the clubs and has successfully deployed what might be described as a form of central planning.
Very successful player development has been one consequence of this "socialist" policy and with it, of course, an outstanding national team.
In turn, this must have increased interest in the game and, along with cheap ticket prices, will have helped to fill Stadiums, creating an outstanding "match day experience".
I'd add a note about caution about the German system though. First, it's a myth that a German football does not experience financial problems. There have been many insolvencies in recent years, more so than in England. Just not in the Bundesliga. Second, remarkably, the national league structure in Germany is relatively young. The German model has not yet proven its sustainabilty over a long time frame.
Well, on this occasion I'd like to to take issue with you.
Firstly. Yes the German FA has the key role. But is it fair to say that it "controls" the clubs? isn't it rather that the clubs are an influential part of the German FA? and in turn, the fans have influence, because they control 51% of the clubs' equity? seriously_red always reminds us of the inbuilt uselessness of the current FA with its amateur "blazers" but it seems the German FA is not like that, and i would argue that it is because the big professional clubs have a relatively bigger influence.
Secondly, your point about insolvencies brought me up sharpish, but are not most of them Eastern German clubs? In which case there are non-football issues behind them. It is a sad fact that no East German club is currently in Bundesliga 1, but it will come. Even though the first might be RB Leipzig, the club whose benefactor dare not speak its name.
Prague - I will pick you up on one point - you say Bayern's marketing is focussed on Germany, not Thailand, which I am sure is broadly true, but for info, I have a friend who makes a full-time living out of writing content for Bayern's official English language website, specifically targeting the Far East...
As others have said above, it is good to have a clear and forceful statement from the CAFC on the Championship's hugely disappointing climbdown on FFP limits. As well as getting it off our corporate chest, it is good and important communication with supporters.
Let us hope that this decision does not, in the medium and longer term, stunt Roland's appetite for the task in hand at Charlton and result in our either treading water (or worse) or ultimately looking for yet another owner. The worry is that FFP does appear to be a major plank of his plan, although he'll have been well aware of the doubts about whether it would ultimately prevail in the teeth of pressure from the Premier League and its vested interests.
Scudamore's blackmail was clearly very effective and one wonders why Brighton - assuming that they did, indeed, vote in favour of the change - succumbed, particularly given the efforts they have made to try and get within the FFP limits (selling Ulloa and replacing him with O'Grady springs to mind). The lobbying that doubtless went on with Brighton and other clubs would probably provide sufficient material for several Alan Ayckbourn plays. What a shower the lot of them are.
To rub salt in the wounds, I suspect that there will now be a totally flaccid approach to enforcing sanctions over the next year or 18 months in a climate where the permissible limits for losses now have been more or less been trebled. Whilst there was no attempt retrospectively to re-write the existing rules, the miscreants' core submission in January and thereafter will be that the original limits were clearly misguided and unduly harsh (as illustrated by the recent amendments) and that this should be reflected in any punishment meted out. No doubt if QPR are relegated and face a huge fine, some 'accommodation' will be reached, with Scudamore and friends helping to facilitate any deal.
As to Charlton's position, if losses for the last two years can be contained at around £5.2 million, we'll have done exceptionally well. As a mate of mine who supports Wednesday remarked earlier this month, we are pretty fortunate to have a responsible and sensible foreign owner who is thinking in the longer term - let's hope that he sticks with us in the teeth of the Championship's capitulation on FFP.
Very interesting An additional £700k for each club...not even a million! CAFC "bitterly disappointed" Some clubs voted "yes" because they don't believe in limits and some because they were afraid of losing the £3m solidarity money in 2016. Our FFP losses less than 3m so no equity investment required. This is broadly in line with the supporters Trust forecast made in October 2013 and is some £2m better than the year before. They also forecast a similar result this season. Take away the cup run which you can't forecast for this season but add the university sponsorship and new catering deal and that means revenue and expenditure is roughly flat. So we have a better, younger, more valuable team touching the play-offs for the same cost as a bottom six squad. Imagine how good we could be if we increase budgets a little?! This tells us more than any soundbite or ITK poster about CAFC direction. As @Mundell Fleming posted, just because the rules change why assume cafc changes tack? Having said that CAFC has the potential to spend big in January if results between now and then warrant that.
Did we not have any shirt sponsorship or catering income last season, then? You are significantly overstating the marginal impact and ignoring the fall in season ticket revenue. The main change to the picture I would guess, is a reduced player and academy budget (although the latter would not affect FFP). And we are nowhere near breakeven on an operating basis.
1) Who needs break even operating position?That is an arbitrary position which requires cuts! Total losses, after player sales are lower than at any time since we were relegated from the FAPL. I am repeating the chief finance officer quote that losses are down and stay the same this year. 2)These losses have been dropping by £1m each and every year from £7m down to £6m and now £5m and the club have stated they are staying at this level 3) and yet performance on the pitch is better - on the same budgets! Imagine where we could go if they added £1m to the budget! 4) The calibre of our top players is such that one player sale might push us into surplus.To be clear, I am not advocating any player sales. Just stating that in my view cafc is at long last sustainable. 5) Of course we had shirt sponsorship before and the old sponsors are on the back of the shirt, probably at a reduced rate? But rumour has it that the new deal has really "sweated the asset" and it is by no means a "marginal" contribution. 6)Likewise the new catering outsourcing deal will reduce turnover (vanity) and increase profitability (sanity). Again rumour has it that this is not marginal and is in fact a step change. These two items combined will make a material contribution to CAFC sustainability.
Perhaps Airman you should use your journalistic prowess to secure the numbers on the sponsorship and catering before dismissing the deals as marginal?
Overall the trust forecast 5m losses last year and David Joyes has confirmed the accuracy plus the intention to maintain that loss number this season.Playing budget cuts occurred in summer 2013 when Ricardo Fuller and others were not renewed and the budget came down by a possible £1.5m? Given the calibre of player wearing our shirt today perhaps the budget was adequate but the players weren't?
Where I think most would agree is that if losses are lower than before and we are a tiny distance away from the play-offs, then it is worth investing not speculating in acquiring more young talent which will help us push on AND might be sold in the future to pay the bills in the possible scenario that we make the play-offs but not win them.
I set out my understanding of the University of Greenwich sponsorship amount in August - and the fact that it was money already committed to the training ground project being moved around, together with the loss of match funding that would result. Taken with the back of shirts and shorts sponsorship the difference in the total value is not material - certainly when set against the decline in season ticket revenue.
I hear what Ben K has been telling people, but you might want to consider why the university would pay significantly more than Andrews in a very difficult market given there had been no change in the club's circumstances from 2012 and 2013, unless the comparison is not like for like. Are they stupid?
A more significant event is the removal of the £200k cost of Paul Hart from the budget.
I don't know what the catering deal is likely to be worth, but presumably the starting point for assessing the value is the net income last season and the potential for growth/savings. Presumably the premium would be a proportion of the latter. The club's non-match hospitality income has shrunk considerably in recent years, but my understanding is that this was heavily impacted by local government cuts because Greenwich were a major customer, as well as the recession. There's unlikely to be a resurgence in bookings from the public sector.
I remind you again that six months ago you said we would be close to breakeven last season because of the FA Cup run and the removal of Kermorgant and Stephens from the wage bill, but this has now become a £5m loss - much as was pointed out to you at the time.
On the plus side £5m is better than £8m - but the consequence was that we were very lucky to avoid relegation. Let's see what happens this time. I agree we have done very well considering the paucity of the squad, but ultimately we will need to get promoted because £5m a year net is still a lot of player sales and the business isn't going to cover it.
Money in a training ground project goes into an asset. And assets are outside the P&L...and outside FFP(rip!) A £4.5m loss is a lot, lot better than £8m - almost a 50% reduction in losses and this has been achieved through a complete shift in direction both on and off the pitch. To cut losses and improve playing performance simultaneously is a major achievement.
If losses are the same this season, then does that mean an uplift on player budgets as one factors in 1) the departure of executives (Hart and Bradshaw...and now Kensell ), 2) the upside on commercial revenue 3) some downside on gates 4) an increase of perhaps £1m per year on player amortisation The point is that by moving up the food chain on the playing side the overall loss number might be covered by just one player sale. I would anticipate that transfer fees for quality championship players will go through the roof now that loss limits have doubled. Again I want to see Vetokele and Gudmundsson help us succeed in the play-offs but high offers may come in. Similarly players like Gomez do not need to be sold early to pay bills.
Regarding the initial forecast, a lot of material events occurred subsequent to the release including the cup run, the sale of players and the arrival of six or seven players. The fact that losses were not lower is almost certainly down to an over exaggeration of initial player budget cuts. The source exaggerated the cut by at least 500k. But this doesn't change the overall picture of a downward trend.
No fan wants to see top players go but if the scouting network and academy can repeat the summer business year after year then we have a new revenue stream. This is where breakeven can be found IF that choice is made.
Talking of the academy, as per other clubs in the Staprix network, there is clearly a plan to develop fixed assets at CAFC. I look forward to hearing just what that plan is. Bob and the big bad Belgians are building...
Money in a training ground project goes into an asset. And assets are outside the P&L...and outside FFP(rip!) A £4.5m loss is a lot, lot better than £8m - almost a 50% reduction in losses and this has been achieved through a complete shift in direction both on and off the pitch. To cut losses and improve playing performance simultaneously is a major achievement.
If losses are the same this season, then does that mean an uplift on player budgets as one factors in 1) the departure of executives (Hart and Bradshaw...and now Kensell ), 2) the upside on commercial revenue 3) some downside on gates 4) an increase of perhaps £1m per year on player amortisation The point is that by moving up the food chain on the playing side the overall loss number might be covered by just one player sale. I would anticipate that transfer fees for quality championship players will go through the roof now that loss limits have doubled. Again I want to see Vetokele and Gudmundsson help us succeed in the play-offs but high offers may come in. Similarly players like Gomez do not need to be sold early to pay bills.
Regarding the initial forecast, a lot of material events occurred subsequent to the release including the cup run, the sale of players and the arrival of six or seven players. The fact that losses were not lower is almost certainly down to an over exaggeration of initial player budget cuts. The source exaggerated the cut by at least 500k. But this doesn't change the overall picture of a downward trend.
No fan wants to see top players go but if the scouting network and academy can repeat the summer business year after year then we have a new revenue stream. This is where breakeven can be found IF that choice is made.
Talking of the academy, as per other clubs in the Staprix network, there is clearly a plan to develop fixed assets at CAFC. I look forward to hearing just what that plan is. Bob and the big bad Belgians are building...
Can we fix it? Yes we can!
I fully appreciate that the transfer of the UoG money from capital to revenue makes this year's P&L look better, but how much better to have both the external investment in the training ground AND a shirt sponsor. What's more unless UoG are getting less access to the facility, if built, I'd be suspicious they are effectively getting the shirt sponsorship for nothing. But that, of course, requires the thing to be built!
BBC website has comments from the Brighton Chairman talking about spending in January, will be interested to see if they do now go on a spending spree and if that is why they had the change of heart over the serious FFP rules.
Prague - I will pick you up on one point - you say Bayern's marketing is focussed on Germany, not Thailand, which I am sure is broadly true, but for info, I have a friend who makes a full-time living out of writing content for Bayern's official English language website, specifically targeting the Far East...
Hi Weegie, I lifted that remark from the Bayern Wikipedia page. It did indeed look like a throwaway remark without backup, and I should have been more cautious about believing it.
I think it is true that Bayern don't get involved in all these exhibition matches in Asia or the US, at least up to now, as i recall.
Very disappointed in all this. FFP was the only long term, sane choice and the FL has blown it. Fans of Cardiff, Fulham, Boro, Forest, Bournemouth etc will no doubt revel in their clubs continued over spends; then like Pompey appeal to the football masses to help bail them out when they go bust.
Billionaires will lose interest sooner or later. Why would you gamble £50M + for promotion when it gets you a reported £120M, spread over 5 years which is soaked up by increased player costs. It just does not make financial sense and even as a crazy billionaire you must now have enough examples of Cardiff, Fulham, Blackburn, QPR of huge losses, slim to no chance of recouping and for what?
Simply Red talks about breaking even...we are £5M pa away from that with, reportedly one of the lowest budgets. It is crazy. Sure Vet has been a huge success but if we flog him in the summer to recoup losses we are back to square one and struggling next year. If finding a never ending supply of great, cheap, unknown young talents was easy everyone would do it.
The network may give us some advantage over other FL clubs but there are still the PL clubs searching everywhere, other European clubs and players agents good enough to find mugs like Wigan to overpay for strikers.
I hope RD sticks with us as to date you cannot fault the change he has bought about but this Championship money pit is pure lunacy.
My further concern is that sooner or later PL clubs with never ending TV funds will cut the prices for their fans (the smaller the % of their total revenue the less important it becomes and politically that will do them a power of good). Championship clubs simply will not be able to afford to follow suit and tied to Stu's comment above, if you have West Ham and Palace on your doorstep offering better quality football for cheaper where does it leave us?
Comments
is it because they have massive sponsorship deals bigger than ours or more generous owners
what is the difference
My understanding is that generally wages at German clubs are lower than at English clubs. Check the squads and you will see relatively larger numbers of players from the Balkans and Central Europe.
But generally everyone in Germany is OK with this. They look at our league, where no-marks like DJ Campbell can command £22,000, and go away shaking their heads at the island monkeys' madness. The salaries are kept in check because, firstly the TV money has been a lot lower in total than here, although it is catching up, and secondly - and for me this is crucial - it is spread out far more evenly than in England and has been across two Divisions for several years. Now there is Bundesliga Three, and I assume that this also involves a spread of the money further down the league.
Bayern has been the exception. Bayern have complained for years that the relatively low TV money has disadvantaged them in Europe. However everyone else hates them so they didn't get their way on TV. And even Bayern is owned by its members. As a result of being denied on the TV share, they have played a brilliant commercial game. Freed from the cost of building their spanking stadium, (which they share with TSV), they have a great P&L, and as a result they were able to sell just a 9% stake to (I think) Audi for a huge amount of money, which they then spent wisely. Unfortunately (I was discussing this just last night with my client who is a Frankfurt fan and watched their 0-4 spanking by Bayern last weekend), there's a general feeling that the Bundesliga is now all about the race for second place, and no-one knows how to cut down Bayern in any way which is fair.
But I repeat, the TV money is not the reason for Bayern's strength. Bundesliga 2 is in good nick. Clubs are not in danger of going bust. FC Koln, after several years in B2, finally dragged themselves back into B1. They are 100% sold out in their 50k stadium the whole season. It's not about a billionaire owner. It's about the city of Cologne with its special sense of itself, its own dialect and character.
The other thing to mention about Germany is that most top clubs don't own their own stadia, and several of them did benefit from World Cup 2006. So most of them including Bayern don't have debt related to stadium investment hanging around their necks.
I think those are the main points. If I didn't make it clear enough, just shout. (what I cannot get is exact numbers for the TV deal or its share, this is extremely difficult to get from any country, as I found out when looking at Ujpest. But I'm on solid ground with the general principals of it)
s in Germany? How many teams in the top 2 tier's do we have in London, Manchester or Liverpool?
Addicks fans have nothing to fear in respect of sanctions, with the club generating an FFP loss of £2.6m for the 2013/14 season and a similar level of loss forecast for the 2014/15 season.
Financial stability remains paramount in the club’s future strategy despite these rule changes.
Read more at http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-cfo-responds-to-ffp-amendments-2076932.aspx#3MMeFUt8XrVjSC6P.99
An additional £700k for each club...not even a million!
CAFC "bitterly disappointed"
Some clubs voted "yes" because they don't believe in limits and some because they were afraid of losing the £3m solidarity money in 2016.
Our FFP losses less than 3m so no equity investment required. This is broadly in line with the supporters Trust forecast made in October 2013 and is some £2m better than the year before. They also forecast a similar result this season. Take away the cup run which you can't forecast for this season but add the university sponsorship and new catering deal and that means revenue and expenditure is roughly flat.
So we have a better, younger, more valuable team touching the play-offs for the same cost as a bottom six squad. Imagine how good we could be if we increase budgets a little?!
This tells us more than any soundbite or ITK poster about CAFC direction. As @Mundell Fleming posted, just because the rules change why assume cafc changes tack?
Having said that CAFC has the potential to spend big in January if results between now and then warrant that.
Mind you I want all this malarkey to result in points gained for us. Score goals, win matches, get points. I am therefore hoping that the authorities give our league rivals a kicking if they have broken the rules, and that feeds through to weaker teams for them, stronger squad for us.
2)These losses have been dropping by £1m each and every year from £7m down to £6m and now £5m and the club have stated they are staying at this level
3) and yet performance on the pitch is better - on the same budgets! Imagine where we could go if they added £1m to the budget!
4) The calibre of our top players is such that one player sale might push us into surplus.To be clear, I am not advocating any player sales. Just stating that in my view cafc is at long last sustainable.
5) Of course we had shirt sponsorship before and the old sponsors are on the back of the shirt, probably at a reduced rate? But rumour has it that the new deal has really "sweated the asset" and it is by no means a "marginal" contribution.
6)Likewise the new catering outsourcing deal will reduce turnover (vanity) and increase profitability (sanity). Again rumour has it that this is not marginal and is in fact a step change. These two items combined will make a material contribution to CAFC sustainability.
Perhaps Airman you should use your journalistic prowess to secure the numbers on the sponsorship and catering before dismissing the deals as marginal?
Overall the trust forecast 5m losses last year and David Joyes has confirmed the accuracy plus the intention to maintain that loss number this season.Playing budget cuts occurred in summer 2013 when Ricardo Fuller and others were not renewed and the budget came down by a possible £1.5m? Given the calibre of player wearing our shirt today perhaps the budget was adequate but the players weren't?
Where I think most would agree is that if losses are lower than before and we are a tiny distance away from the play-offs, then it is worth investing not speculating in acquiring more young talent which will help us push on AND might be sold in the future to pay the bills in the possible scenario that we make the play-offs but not win them.
Now our squad is fit again let's see if we can repeat the Reading performance and result vs mid-table (and lower) teams.
Local press reports suggest Forest, Blackburn and Bolton may suffer a player registration embargo this January so they have to complete the season with today's squad.
Perhaps we should be more interested in Forest and Blackburn because they are competitors in the top half and for the same player pool?
They can easily afford Arjen Robben!
http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/soccer/germany/bundesliga/
http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/soccer/germany/bundesliga-2/
So take a look at the area between Cologne and Dortmund. Its heaving with heavyweight clubs. You can get from Cologne to Dortmund in the same time (and a lot less hassle) as it takes to get from Greenwich borough to Spurs or Chelsea. Dortmund to Schalke? Quicker than the Valley to Selhurst, thats for sure. So in that area the competition is intense, but they are packing em in. We gave up on getting tickets for our weekend and will probably go to Berlin. You can get in to see Hertha because they play in the Olympic stadium and get "only" 40,000.
The key difference between England and Germany appears to be the role of the German FA which effectively controls the clubs and has successfully deployed what might be described as a form of central planning.
Very successful player development has been one consequence of this "socialist" policy and with it, of course, an outstanding national team.
In turn, this must have increased interest in the game and, along with cheap ticket prices, will have helped to fill Stadiums, creating an outstanding "match day experience".
I'd add a note about caution about the German system though. First, it's a myth that a German football does not experience financial problems. There have been many insolvencies in recent years, more so than in England. Just not in the Bundesliga. Second, remarkably, the national league structure in Germany is relatively young. The German model has not yet proven its sustainabilty over a long time frame.
Well, on this occasion I'd like to to take issue with you.
Firstly. Yes the German FA has the key role. But is it fair to say that it "controls" the clubs? isn't it rather that the clubs are an influential part of the German FA? and in turn, the fans have influence, because they control 51% of the clubs' equity? seriously_red always reminds us of the inbuilt uselessness of the current FA with its amateur "blazers" but it seems the German FA is not like that, and i would argue that it is because the big professional clubs have a relatively bigger influence.
Secondly, your point about insolvencies brought me up sharpish, but are not most of them Eastern German clubs? In which case there are non-football issues behind them. It is a sad fact that no East German club is currently in Bundesliga 1, but it will come. Even though the first might be RB Leipzig, the club whose benefactor dare not speak its name.
Let us hope that this decision does not, in the medium and longer term, stunt Roland's appetite for the task in hand at Charlton and result in our either treading water (or worse) or ultimately looking for yet another owner. The worry is that FFP does appear to be a major plank of his plan, although he'll have been well aware of the doubts about whether it would ultimately prevail in the teeth of pressure from the Premier League and its vested interests.
Scudamore's blackmail was clearly very effective and one wonders why Brighton - assuming that they did, indeed, vote in favour of the change - succumbed, particularly given the efforts they have made to try and get within the FFP limits (selling Ulloa and replacing him with O'Grady springs to mind). The lobbying that doubtless went on with Brighton and other clubs would probably provide sufficient material for several Alan Ayckbourn plays. What a shower the lot of them are.
To rub salt in the wounds, I suspect that there will now be a totally flaccid approach to enforcing sanctions over the next year or 18 months in a climate where the permissible limits for losses now have been more or less been trebled. Whilst there was no attempt retrospectively to re-write the existing rules, the miscreants' core submission in January and thereafter will be that the original limits were clearly misguided and unduly harsh (as illustrated by the recent amendments) and that this should be reflected in any punishment meted out. No doubt if QPR are relegated and face a huge fine, some 'accommodation' will be reached, with Scudamore and friends helping to facilitate any deal.
As to Charlton's position, if losses for the last two years can be contained at around £5.2 million, we'll have done exceptionally well. As a mate of mine who supports Wednesday remarked earlier this month, we are pretty fortunate to have a responsible and sensible foreign owner who is thinking in the longer term - let's hope that he sticks with us in the teeth of the Championship's capitulation on FFP.
I hear what Ben K has been telling people, but you might want to consider why the university would pay significantly more than Andrews in a very difficult market given there had been no change in the club's circumstances from 2012 and 2013, unless the comparison is not like for like. Are they stupid?
A more significant event is the removal of the £200k cost of Paul Hart from the budget.
I don't know what the catering deal is likely to be worth, but presumably the starting point for assessing the value is the net income last season and the potential for growth/savings. Presumably the premium would be a proportion of the latter. The club's non-match hospitality income has shrunk considerably in recent years, but my understanding is that this was heavily impacted by local government cuts because Greenwich were a major customer, as well as the recession. There's unlikely to be a resurgence in bookings from the public sector.
I remind you again that six months ago you said we would be close to breakeven last season because of the FA Cup run and the removal of Kermorgant and Stephens from the wage bill, but this has now become a £5m loss - much as was pointed out to you at the time.
On the plus side £5m is better than £8m - but the consequence was that we were very lucky to avoid relegation. Let's see what happens this time. I agree we have done very well considering the paucity of the squad, but ultimately we will need to get promoted because £5m a year net is still a lot of player sales and the business isn't going to cover it.
A £4.5m loss is a lot, lot better than £8m - almost a 50% reduction in losses and this has been achieved through a complete shift in direction both on and off the pitch. To cut losses and improve playing performance simultaneously is a major achievement.
If losses are the same this season, then does that mean an uplift on player budgets as one factors in
1) the departure of executives (Hart and Bradshaw...and now Kensell ),
2) the upside on commercial revenue
3) some downside on gates
4) an increase of perhaps £1m per year on player amortisation
The point is that by moving up the food chain on the playing side the overall loss number might be covered by just one player sale. I would anticipate that transfer fees for quality championship players will go through the roof now that loss limits have doubled. Again I want to see Vetokele and Gudmundsson help us succeed in the play-offs but high offers may come in. Similarly players like Gomez do not need to be sold early to pay bills.
Regarding the initial forecast, a lot of material events occurred subsequent to the release including the cup run, the sale of players and the arrival of six or seven players. The fact that losses were not lower is almost certainly down to an over exaggeration of initial player budget cuts. The source exaggerated the cut by at least 500k. But this doesn't change the overall picture of a downward trend.
No fan wants to see top players go but if the scouting network and academy can repeat the summer business year after year then we have a new revenue stream. This is where breakeven can be found IF that choice is made.
Talking of the academy, as per other clubs in the Staprix network, there is clearly a plan to develop fixed assets at CAFC. I look forward to hearing just what that plan is. Bob and the big bad Belgians are building...
Can we fix it? Yes we can!
bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30004150
I think it is true that Bayern don't get involved in all these exhibition matches in Asia or the US, at least up to now, as i recall.
Billionaires will lose interest sooner or later. Why would you gamble £50M + for promotion when it gets you a reported £120M, spread over 5 years which is soaked up by increased player costs. It just does not make financial sense and even as a crazy billionaire you must now have enough examples of Cardiff, Fulham, Blackburn, QPR of huge losses, slim to no chance of recouping and for what?
Simply Red talks about breaking even...we are £5M pa away from that with, reportedly one of the lowest budgets. It is crazy. Sure Vet has been a huge success but if we flog him in the summer to recoup losses we are back to square one and struggling next year. If finding a never ending supply of great, cheap, unknown young talents was easy everyone would do it.
The network may give us some advantage over other FL clubs but there are still the PL clubs searching everywhere, other European clubs and players agents good enough to find mugs like Wigan to overpay for strikers.
I hope RD sticks with us as to date you cannot fault the change he has bought about but this Championship money pit is pure lunacy.
My further concern is that sooner or later PL clubs with never ending TV funds will cut the prices for their fans (the smaller the % of their total revenue the less important it becomes and politically that will do them a power of good). Championship clubs simply will not be able to afford to follow suit and tied to Stu's comment above, if you have West Ham and Palace on your doorstep offering better quality football for cheaper where does it leave us?
I am very pessimistic at this moment.