Good Morning. It's Friday 8th September, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road Answers were long overdue Angus Kinnear has finally opened up, giving a frank, and open assessment of the trials of tribulations from the last few seasons at Elland Road. The Leeds Managing Director sat down with Leeds fanzine site 'The Square Ball' on Wednesday, and finally give explanations behind the Leeds board's decision making. The club has gone from a well oiled machine, on the cusp of European football to a Championship outfit in the space of just over two years, and the fans have been demanding answers. Although obviously a well rehearsed PR stunt, Kinnear came across well. He gave full explanations to questions fans have been asking for a long time and took responsibility for their mistakes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Will the club learn by their mistakes? It just seems that the goings-on around Elland Road continually play out like a soap opera. The fans want stability, and hopefully with 49ers Enterprises at the helm, things will now settle down. please log in to view this image Could Everton escape FFP points deductions Football’s independent regulator will now not recommend sporting sanctions against clubs that blatantly flout Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. A Government white paper published in February, called for ‘genuine consequences’ for clubs who break FFP rules, however plans to impose ‘sporting sanctions’ are now set to be vetoed, with Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer MP quoted as saying the government do not wish to ‘place unnecessary burdens on the game’. Clubs will still be recieve hefty fines for FFP breaches, but will not suffer points deductions and penalties which obstructs their sporting activity. A fine will have absolutely no affect on the likes of Manchester City or Chelsea. Where does this leave Everton, who have already been charged with FFP misdemeanors? please log in to view this image Kinnear regrets not getting rid of Marsch sooner When deciding on a successor to Marcelo Bielsa, Jesse Marsch (on paper at least) ticked many boxes. Trying to replicate the great man was always going to be nigh on impossible, but the Leeds board had faith in the young American Bielsa was not without his faults. Many, including Marsch openly criticised him for over training the players and risking burnout. He refused to deviate from man to man marking, or his rigid 4/2/3/1 formation, even when his head was on the chopping block, opting instead to die on his sword. No sooner were Jessie Marsch's feet under the table, than he launched a vicious attack on his predecessors training regime, a decision he would later regret. The squad went from being over trained (theoretically), to under-trained in a short space of time, and their fitness levels suffered as a result. Victor Orta expected Marsch to continue Bielsa's great work, but make tweaks along the way. Unfortunately things didn't work , and just shy of his one year anniversary, he received his P45. Marsch may well have bitten the bullet prior to the World Cup (December 22), but as Kinnear explains, wins against Bournemouth and Liverpool gave him a stay of execution, a decision the Leeds board ultimately regret. “There were certain things Victor saw from a technical perspective when he was looking at coaches that showed there were synergies (between Marsch and Bielsa). Marcelo is the definition of unique. Trying to find anybody able to deliver in the same way as he did was going to be difficult. “But from Jesse’s (team’s) pressing stats, the running stats, we thought he was going to be able to leverage the fact that the team was really fit. We thought that was an important part of his game. The fitness did fall away and we didn’t expect that." “There were some challenges with (Biesla’s) man-to-man approach. We thought Jesse was going to bring a more pragmatic style of play, which was perhaps better adapted to the Premier League. Clearly, it didn’t work. “Jesse worked very, very hard. He was very committed. He was always, as he said, ‘all in’. Jesse would hold his hands up and say it didn’t work." "He had a very good track record as a coach but you have to accept it failed, and it also failed from a recruitment perspective. “In the run-up to Christmas, we were in a difficult position. The trajectory wasn’t moving in the right direction. We had a significant dip and it was probably the Bournemouth and Liverpool games (victories at a time when Marsch was under major pressure) when we thought we were moving in the right direction. Perhaps if we hadn’t had those two results, we might have made the decision earlier." “Based on where we ended up, it was the wrong decision because we got relegated. That’s what everybody was trying to avoid. It was debated a lot at the time. If we had the decision again, knowing what we know now, we’d have absolutely made the change then." "Without going into the individuals involved, there wasn’t alignment on the board at that stage. “You have to look at what type of change you can make, what type of manager can you get in, what are the chances of that manager making it better. You have to take all those things into account. But a change would have been better at that point.” please log in to view this image
Morning all Heard the interview and a lot of frank answers, but my main take away was that Marsch was the biggest mistake ever and all that followed ended in relegation. He was given a massive contract, was given players he wanted and when it turned out that he was crap and the players he wanted were not good enough the die was cast. Why wasn’t Kinnear asked about consequences of failure within the board. After all they admit to employing the wrong man, giving him a long lucrative contract, giving him circa £100m in players he wanted. Relegation has cost us £120m on top of the £100m lost on player, plus massive wage bill. Which company in the normal world would have carried on as if nothing had happened…..
Morning all. Re the ffp thing, it's all rubbish and an excuse for certain clubs not to invest. Everton or city were never going to suffer, we all knew that. Re Kinnear, he was part of the shambles and he's still there amazingly. Im not remotely convinced they wont make the same mistakes again and also how are they going to address the issue of players like Costa who may have to return at end of season because they're too useless for anyone else to employ. OK promotion would solve some problems, but lets face it, that's anything but a certainty
Morning everyone from red hot wakefield. Kinnear is just the administrator at the club. The ones who spent all the money have since moved on. Perhaps Kinnear is sick of the flack but keeping the big jesse was not his decision to make. Rads bowed to Orta way too many times. Let's see how these 49ers group get on this season first. I am not expecting to win the league as i think Leicester are the best.
This to me sums up why Orta is a truly useless DOF thinking that Marsch was the ideal replacement for MB. Bielsa football involved set patterns of play for which wingers were integral with their fullbacks to create an overload, it’s why we bought so many of them. So Orta replaces him with a coach known for the RB narrow 4-2-2-2 formation basically ruining the way most of our forward thinking players actually play. There were proper “disciples” of the Bielsa style, some of them named by some on here, he could have appointed. Bielsa is impossible to replicate but at least the style would have been a continuation for the squad we put together. Again some on here proved right that the wins against Bournemouth and Liverpool saved his job.
If Costa hasn’t gone to a Turkish club or elsewhere by next week, he will be given a compromise deal to get him off the books. He still has a year left and can just sit on his arse as he isnt training with the first team. He’s on international duty at the moment but when he gets back he will end up being allowed to move on a free transfer ffs. Its all about them and their wages. Being allowed to leave means getting his contract paid up then getting another club who will give him a big salary as they get him for free and also not paying him a signing in fee. Ludicrous management by Leeds and Orta and player nobody has seen for 3 seasons as he’s been out on loan
The Boro fans warned about Orta five or six years ago and they still haven't recovered from their relegation but we persisted with him till he eventually ran the club into the ground. He even reached legendary status with some for putting scarves on the seats before the Derby playoff. Why oh why do we continually end up with lunatics running our asylum. He then had the audacity to boast that HE got the club promoted after 16 years
It's just a pity that the subject of the stadium improvement plan wasn't brought up, as Kinnear is the driving force for this. I just don't get the basic arithmetic that's been spouted. Apparently we have match day income of £1m, & this upgrade is expected to raise it to £5m. Presently, we have a capacity of approx. 36,000. Simple arithmetic states that we should therefore quintuple our capacity to meet this quintupled £5m objective, thus: 5x 36,000 equals 180,000, not the 50-55,000 that's been bandied about. The Maracana 2.0 !! I'd love Kinnear to explain this magical plan that defies arithmetic laws. Or am I missing the obvious?
Kinnear said the club are miles ahead of any other Championship club on revenues, so our FFFP shouldn’t be a problem as we generate £60m without parachute payments, many championship clubs only generate £15m. He said no plans for 49ers or their investors to take out any profits as it’s a long term project and they see that stadium development is the only way to increase revenues where they need to be. In simplistic terms each of the 36,000 seats generates £1,660 per season, increase the number of seats and ……….. I seem to remember that Radz said each matchday at ER we generate £7m not the £1m WJ mentioned
I think its on the basis that Spurs get around £5m per game (according to Kinnear) with an average attendance of 62k, where as we only get a fifth of their match day income with approx 58% of their attendance figures, so they must be able to do something that we presently are unable to, due to the stadium restrictions. EDIT - All the above was just based on figures previously mentioned by Kinnear. More in depth post below in reply to Doc's comment
Guess it depends on what is classed as match day income, because Scum only generate £4m per Premier League home game. Same chart says Spurs generate just under £3m per Premier League home game with an average attendance of approx 55k https://sportsjournal.io/premier-league-football-clubs-matchday-data/ (not entirely convinced on this, as data says its from 2022, but on the clubs included it would be the 2018/19 season, so data probably 4 years old) Spurs 2022 accounts show that they generated £106m in respect of match day income. They had 26 home games that season, so that's just over £4m per game (19 league games (average attendance approx. 55k), 2 FA Cup, 2 League Cup and 3 UEFA Conference games). Their average attendance for 7 of those cup games was 38k. The final UEFA game that season was not played due to a COVID outbreak at Spurs, so they forfeited the home tie, so that has not been included within the above figures. They also generated a further £183m in commercial (presumably this covers merchandising and catering etc), but if you include all their generated income , except for television and central distributions monies (totalling £144m) their income equates to approx £11.1m per home game. https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/2023/february/financial-results-year-end-30-june-2022/ The last set of audited accounts for ourselves filed June 2022, shows that we had gate receipts of approx. £24m for the 2021/22 season, generated from 19 Premier league home games and 1 home game in the League cup, making an average income of approx. £1.2m per game. Now obviously there will also be a boost to the above with merchandise and catering revenue on match days, which is worth approx £1.5m per game, although of course not all of the merchandising revenue is generated on a match day. If you don't include the television and central distribution monies ( as most clubs in the EPL will be earning fairly similar on average) of £115m, then our total income that season was £73m, which equates to approx. £3.6m per home game. EDIT - Sorry I didnt take into account changes in television and central distribution earnings when writing below Think the most significant thing when comparing ourselves and Spurs, is that during our first season (2020/21) back in the Premier League, when there were no crowds in grounds, our income was £18m less than the following season (2021/22). Due to an overall reduction the following season in the central distribution funds etc, a full Elland Road was able to generate £1.2m per home game. Spurs income in the 2020/21 season was 83m less than the following season. With changes in central distribution, Uefa prize money etc between the two seasons, this equates to having fans in attendance in the 2021/22 season, meant that Spurs generated an additional £4m per game. So Spurs were able to increase their match day income 3 times more than ourselves, with only 42% more fans in attendance
Higher ticket prices no doubt. Also thought they were looking to the middle east for investment, possibly to finance the stadium.
I can't find the article where Kinnear mentioned the £1m & £5m numbers, but this article quotes him as saying, well, I'll let you read it ... https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/angus-kinnear-elland-road-pitch-19639886 This is the key phrase: “The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium generates five times the revenue of Elland Road each and every matchday and this is a commercial advantage that transfers directly to the pitch".
As I said I remember similar WJ, which is what prompted me to look more closely at the figures in the audited accounts. From the accounts I would say that Spurs generate approx. 3.3 times more than we were able to able, when you don't include tv, central distribution or competition prize money, from the additional 20k that they have in attendance at home games
Kinnear and the board would be making many assumptions. Tottenham are competing for CL football at top end of pl and playing in a five star hotel. Were stuck in Championship with absolutely no clue when well get out of it. Would we fill a 55k stadium in two years if we haven't been promoted, not a chance. Can't see any worthwhile improvements in stadium for several seasons till were hopefully st least a mid table pl team. at my vintage I doubt Id imagine Ill only see it on tv
What I'm really getting at is that we brought in Kinnear precisely because of his expertise in stadium rebuild / expansion projects. It doesn't really matter to me what the precise figures are, it's that we have our 'specialist' bumping his gums about a five-fold increase in matchday income. But it doesn't cut it when you slice & dice the numbers any way you like. It just doesn't add up! To me, he's either lying, or incredibly stupid to set unachievable targets. I can't make up my mind if it's actually both or not.
All images of our new stadiums, be it be via television, still images, etc will only be available to the exclusive Platinum Stadium Membership scheme, fees starting at £5k per season. To view said images, members will be required to input their unique membership pin code. Television companies will be required to provide 2 streams of any games that Leeds are competing in, one showing just the pitch and the players for all the cheap skates, and one showing the shiny new seats to the Platinum Members Any unauthorised publication of the stadium will be dealt with severely by the club, with transgressors being forced to attend Mouldy Trafford for the next 10 years. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
But that article you referred only states Kinnear saying that Spurs generate 5 times more match day income than we do at present. There is no mention that we would achieve the same with our increase in stadium capacity. It's a typical politicians answer of mention something that is associated with the question asked, without actually answering it. By saying that Spurs generate xxx amount more than ourselves following the stadium change, makes people think upon first hearing it, is that we will be able to generate the same, but that is not what it says in that article. He said the same thing on last years Square Ball interview, he was very open that Spurs make 5 times more than us following the move to the new stadium, and that an increase to our capacity, would be able to make us more competitive financially, without at any time, saying we will match the income that Spurs generate. Spurs moved from White Hart Lane in at the end of the 2017 season, the capacity for the ground was 36k. Their audited accounts for that season show match day revenue of £117m, so approx 40% more than we are generating in our last audited accounts. Since the move to the new stadium, Spurs match day revenue has increased 140%, for an increase in capacity of 40%. On the same basis that would mean increasing the capacity of Elland Road by 20k, could increase match day revenue from £73m (guestimate figure based on audited accounts) to £175m. However that would also mean that we need to be more efficient with our commercial department etc, to be able to take advantage of the capacity increase, to achieve those figures. So was Kinnear lying or being incredibly stupid, I don't think so. He was presenting data in a way that was factually correct, but with the implication that can quite easily could/would be misunderstood. As I said he gave a politicians answer The quote from the Leeds Live article that you referred to was taken from the video below (this is obviously where I remember hearing the £5m figure myself, and fully admit that without giving it much thought at the time, that's what we would be looking to generate from a stadium renovation, although obviously thats not what he actually said, and also impractical given that on a match day income we are 50% less than what Spurs were generating 6 years ago) The relevant section is between 1:08:20 and 1:08:55 video of last seasons TSB interview
