Skip to main content

Both Birmingham clubs could face points deduction

If a disciplinary commission backs up the EFL's view that Birmingham City should be docked 15 points, it is likely to have implications for Aston Villa who are also likely to be charged with breaching the spending cap. The EFL thinks that sanctions have not been tough enough to deter clubs breaking the rules, although the disciplinary commission may not share that view.

Villa have made an aggregate loss of £37.1m during their two seasons in the Championship, giving them very little room for manoeuvre to comply with rules that permit losses of £39m over a three year period. Their campaign has hardly been a success so far, so the escape route of promotion to the Premier League does not seem to be within their grasp, and their parachute payments this year have dropped from £33m to £17m.

If they lose £17m this season, then they could expect to be deducted 12 points next season.

The broader issue here is that Birmingham football has been punching under its weight for some time. The high profile of the two Manchester clubs helps to make the city more fashionable and attract investment. HST2 may not be the answer some people think it is.

What can be done about is another matter, as the answer is really in the hands of the clubs themselves. I met the new West Midlands mayor, Andy Street, during his election campaign and was impressed by him, but it is hardly within his remit.

Comments

  1. £371m loss! I thought that's incredible. Elsewhere it is reported as £37.1m. That decimal point is quite important!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for pointing out this mistake. I have now inserted the decimal point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you seriously trying to imply that football is an inducement for where people relocate to? If not why bring up HS2 and Andy Street?
    As for FFP can anyone explain how fining a club or taking away so many points that a team can be relegated actually makes them more solvent? In addition what other industry would deny an owner the right to invest in his own company? I think a visit to the courts is the answer, can't see the law allowing such a stupid rule to be legal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the second point, I am not necessarily defending FFP. Indeed, I think that it is potentially open to legal challenge because it may not be compatible with competition law. Of course, football always regards itself as different to other industries, but that does not mean that its governing authorities are beyond legal challenge. If owners convert losses or loans into shares, they are beyond the scope of FFP. I think that what concerns the EFL is that its rules have been evaded. I am certainly not in favour of big points deductions which penalise fans rather than misbehaving owners.
    On the first point, I would need to dig around to find some of the studies that have been done on this. However, the general point is that having a football club with a global following raises the profile of a city generally. The link between this and specific investments may be hard to demonstrate. Certainly Manchester benefits from football tourism.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

  I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month.   He was approaching ninety, but still went to games.   Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules.  Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved:  https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen.  There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere:  https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/