Czarnikjak

Realistically anything between 2nd and 20th

18 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

So this is more like 90% of total in group accounts. Though this accounts for 231 staff and our first team and head coach will be, what? 30? If the scope more limited then the cost might be closer to the 75% I'd picked up from elsewhere.

This 231 will probably be all footballers and coaches, including academy (not women though). But it's impossible to be sure really. First team players and coaches will take vast majority of it you would think, over 90%, probably more like 95%. So in the best case scenario it would be 90% of £124m 

13 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

So we pass at around 80-85% for 23/24 the higher figure being if we have no transfer income at all next season. Still 24/25 a tipping point, lose £33m contribution from Grealish while the threshold drops to 80%, if revenue and costs don't change from my 23/24 forecast thats a £40M gap to plug, so £120M in sales profit.

Aston Villa FC Limited posted wages of £9.3m plus £1m directors renumeration. I think it's probably safe to assume the rest of the wages went to footballing staff.

Just now, CVByrne said:

Are we sure the squad cost is done over 3 years of accounts? Is it retrospective also? 

Squad cost is not done over 3 years and it's not retrospective.

The only part of it they look over 3 years is profit on player sales. It's too variable to look only at one transfer window for that.

Just now, tomsky_11 said:

Sorry, I mean is anything else in the squad cost ratio calc a multiyear average?

No. Just the profit on player sales.

Just now, tomsky_11 said:

Yeah makes sense. Will have a reread of rules later if find the time. Is that the only multiyear average that contributes to the figure?

Yup, and only applies to the squad cost control, not to the allowed loss figure AFAIK.

Also this table is interesting, listing potential financial penalties for going above squad cost (aka Luxury Tax)

1 minute ago, tomsky_11 said:

I haven't, I just did the calc for the season. Is that how it works then? Only skim read the rules to find a rough basis for the calc this morning so probably missed it.

Good shout. Will take a look.

Yes, profit on player sales is calculated by taking the average of last 3 seasons ( just for the squad cost control mind). I assume it's to make it less variable and more predictable for teams.

3 hours ago, tomsky_11 said:

Have just adjusted my estimates for 22/23 and 23/24 based on the above and get the following:

Revenue

22/23 - £220M

23/24 - £240-245M

PL FFP adjusted profit/(loss)

22/23 - (£37M)

23/24 - (£50M)

PL FFP adjusted profit/(loss) 3 year cumulative (threshold £(105M))

22/23 - £(40M)

23/24 - £(65M)

UEFA squad cost ratio estimate

23/24 - 93% (cap 90%)

My 23/24 estimates are based on a 7th place PL finish and a reaching latter knockout stages (QF/SF) of Europa Conference, selling/releasing Sanson/Nakamba/Davis/Young/Traore/Steer/Hause/Wesley for combined £25M, and spending around £100M on 4 players at £100K pw. For squad cost I've assumed 75% of our employee cost is for players and head coach, based on limited info I can find on reasonable PL average for this.

If any of this is at all accurate, then from a PL FFP perspective we are very comfortable for this season and next, but looks like we'd be pushing the limits of UEFA rules (UEFA I think allows €60M losses over 3 seasons, though not sure how comparable the PL FFP adjusted figure is to this), though perhaps not by much so should be able to get within the rules while still spending.

The biggest issue we might have is going to be 24/25 when:

- we lose the Grealish money from the 3-year assessment period

- the other two years as it stands look like making losses beyond the average annual threshold for the PL rules, nevermind UEFA's tighter limits.

- the UEFA squad cost ratio cap reduces to 80%

The two biggest ways we could offset this will be:

- Selling, especially youth for decent money relative to their first team role, eg. like Chukwuemeka sale

- Champions League qualification

Beyond that, establishing a more settled squad, promoting youth, and relying less on transfers will also help.

 

 

Thanks, great work.

For uefa squad cost calculation, i take you have used last 3 year average for profit on player sales? So that would include the Grealish summer, last Summer and whoever we manage to sell for profit this summer.

Also, to get salaries of non football staff, you could look in companies houses at accounts of Aston Villa Ltd (or however this company is now called)...im pretty sure last time I checked it looked as if it had only those employees listed in its accounts. Playing staff  are only included in NSWE accounts

19 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Just posting because of the insane highlights real

 

Wesley's highlights reel was equally impressive.

3 minutes ago, Pinebro said:

Who is Wesley?

Promising young Brazilian international we payed £22m for.

3 hours ago, Pinebro said:

New right back and 2 new wingers.

Genuinely have no idea what is gonna happen with the striker situation.

Archer isn't playing ahead of Watkins and I don't think it's good for him at this point in his career and development to sit on a bench and play a cup game every now and then.

Striker situation? Don't forget we still have Wesley on the books. 5 strikers all in.

33 minutes ago, Frodo said:

Heard on a Podcast earlier, think it was Villa view, Bardell & Greg Evans saying our net spend over the last 2 seasons was £40 million, which will set us up nicely to spend big in the summer if required. Sorry I have no science behind this, just excitement 

If you hear anyone mentioning "net spend" in relation to FFP, you can safely disregard everything they say. Basically they have no clue how football accounting works. 

50 minutes ago, Nigel said:

What about if we use the Everton valuation for our covid losses, that way we will have made more money than amazon.

Too late now. Accounts for that period were already audited and submitted 

7 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

im probably entirely wrong in my calculations, but trying to figure out the break even point for any players we may try to offload this summer!??!

• Sanson - purchased for 15m, 3/5 years completed of contract - need to sell for 6m to break even for FFP?
• Nakamba - purchased for 11m, 4/5 years completed of contract - need to sell for 2.2m to break even for FFP?
• Davis - youth product, any fee is profit for FFP purposes?
• Hause - purchased for 3m, however that initial contract and fee is probably zero on the books for accounting purposes now?, so any fee is profit for FFP?
• Traore - purchased for 18m, 3/4 years completed of contract - need to sell for 4.5m to break even for FFP.

 

Other "possible" sales:

• Digne - purchased for 25m, 1.5/4.5 years completed of contract, need to sell for 16.7m to break even for FFP?
• Wesley - purchased for 22m, 4/5 years completed of contract - need to sell for 4.4m to break even for FFP? (although, would we have some medical write off capability if we terminated the last 12 months?)
• Bailey - purchased for 25m, 2/4 years completed of contract, need to sell for 15m to break even for FFP?
• Current Youth players (Archer, Philogene etc), all profit for FFP purposes.

 

I guess the other options are loan (& loan fees) to help bring in money and offset costs, if we cant sell some of them?....

 

Yes, your calculations are generally correct...you might got some of the elapsed contracts lengths incorrectly...ie Sanson will be only 2.5 years this summer I think. Not 3 years. But that doesn't make huge amount of diffenrce.

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

 

So we lose the one off Jack 97m we gain 32m so we'd be at about -40m for the season in FFP calcs. So an all profit player sale (like Davis) before June would be helpful. 

Our 3 year FFP would be running at -40m to end of this season of the available 105 limit 

 

 

 

Yes, this checks out with my estimations.

Basically we rely on continuous profit on player sales  to stay complaint (once grealish impact expires from calculations).

That profit must average at around £30-40m a season.

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

With 2019 rolling off and 2023 rolling on we'll have more headroom.

Would need to estimate it to be sure.

Based on latest published accounts for last season, add potential increase in Revenue, take away £100m from JG sale, add any  profit on player sales this season (mainly Chuck) and adjust wages/amortisation changes.

Anyone up to the task?

Back of a napkin calculation tells me we gonna be worse off, but still well within limits.

Newcastle have entered FFP elevator while we are left stuck outside with the rest of the peasants. Soon we will have financial big 7 not big 6 in Premier League.

13 minutes ago, punkiller1981 said:

Probably me being thick but looking and reading about Everton and Man City’s financial arrangements and it appears to be the case that Man City over inflated some sponsorship or other commercial deal whenever they needed money. I am just trying to work out why legally not morally that is wrong when it comes to FFP. Wasn’t FFP meant to be about clubs being run in a sustained way so they didn’t end up like a Leeds or Portsmouth (I know the real reason is to stop a Leicester winning the league again situation) but if a rich owner was buying sponsorship then that money is a transaction into the club right ? Therefore it’s not a loan and can’t be clawed back if an owner changes their mind. The value of a sponsorship is really not anyone’s business but the club and and person/business sponsoring surely and if they want to spend £100 mill on a deal that would normally only be worth a £1 mill isn’t that there problem. 
 

i am sure it’s more complicated but does anyone know the answer ?

It's called "related parties sponsorship" and it's also part of Premier League rules. So legally you're not allowed to over inflate your sponsorship deals. Regarding morality of it, it's not mentioned in the rules so better forget about it.

5 hours ago, ender4 said:

Only because Villa have matchday revenues of £16.1m whilst (for example) Spurs have matchday revenues of £106m and Arsenal £90m.

We are expected to improve to £20 million matchday revenue this current season, and can estimate £25-30m after the VP expansion.

Yeah, but that £100m Spurs get is mostly Corporate London boxes...So still not fans, I think the original poster point still stands.

Accounts analysed by Swiss ramble with detailed breakdown of our ffp situation 

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/aston-villa-finances-202122

10 hours ago, tomsky_11 said:

That's what I figured.

Presumably ends up in share premium account on balance sheet? Does this affect how the funds can be used or mean anything in particular, as opposed to how our owners have paid in at the nominal share value?

It doesn't dilute existing share holders what they did.

2 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

 

I thought the UEFA calc was based on wages. So you are right then, royally shafted if it comes in. Intriguing to see Arsenal and Chelsea breaching the 70% figure on wages alone though if that's the case. Are UEFA coming after them for it?

 

No, as it’s not 70% yet, uefa is slowly phasing it in, starting from 90%…I’m not even sure if the new regs apply already.

also your graph only shows “revenue”. I’m pretty sure uefa also allows you to add your profit on player sales into equation . Especially Chelsea, rakes in millions on their academy cast offs.

2 hours ago, MrBlack said:

 

 

Edit:

I did a check and this suggests it's not as bad as I thought, but would still hinder more of the league than it helps:

 

It is worse than you think. This graph you show there only looks at wages. Uefa cost controls include "squad cost" ie wages plus amortisation 

3 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

I reckon 22/23 for FFP could to look something like the following:

Losses of £23M for the first two years would allow for £82M of adjusted losses in 23/24. Without much else changing and with no player sales we wouldn't be far off that figure. But I don't see us not selling at all and I could easily see another £10-15M of amortisation falling away without much effort, eg. end of contracts, contract renewals.

So I think there's room for this summer to be big without getting into immediate trouble. I think this summer has to be reasonably big because its the last year for FFP including the Grealish contribution.

Where is the £203m gone? Are you anywhere near figuring it out for last season?

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

They won't get deals that are much higher than we can get as the PL will refuse them. So what Newcastle are doing is not going down the route of affiliated sponsors as they know the PL can stop them.

Newcastle had 21-22 Turnover of £179m that's the same as we have

They did. Their sleeve sponsor is PIF linked noon.com. They're paying them £7.5m per year, while a going rate for club like ours is £2m. Not sure who approved it, but it went through