Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by suttonpaul

  1. Yep I know but we haven't made losses for a couple of years...
  2. Tayls we do have money it is just people have this notion that we don't it is very clear what our budget is for each year 15-20 on fees
  3. Sorry for the crap grammar and spelling in that last post but I can't be arsed to edit it
  4. Yay a new thread for me to bore people about finances. The reason newly promoted teams can spend so much is they largely will have the same income as us for that year, the vast majority of our income is from TV revenue and it is the same with them. The difference is two fold, firstly they have a lower cost base aka lower wages and support staff and secondly they have much smaller 3 year losses so they can spend over the amount we would if their chairman isn't worried about making a loss. With regard to our own finances we have been dealing with the MON/Houllier fall out and still are the reason for this is 3 fold. 1. Players on high wages we couldn't afford without CL income. 2. Having to replace players that weren't good enough or didn't fit the 4-3-3 system and were on those high incomes. 3. Amortization For point three I will use Darren Bent as an example. Brought for 18m on a 4 year deal this means that every year since we signed him not only have we paid him somewhere between 70 and 80k a week (3.5m to 4m per year) depending on which paper you read but due to amortization on the accounts we have lost a quarter of his fee per year off our accounts so a further 4.5m per year assuming Bent didn't hit any of the clauses that would have made him fee grow to 24m. Just for clarity if it was a third year deal it would be a third of his fee per year and for a 5 year deal it would be a fifth of his fee. I am sure one of our resident accountants can explain amortization better but the point is we have very large 3 year losses and with FFP rules on losses being reduced this year again from the current 45m euros to 30m euros max loss per 3 year period it is important we continue with not making losses for now. With regards to the turnover mentioned on the OP it will actually be much higher due to the new TV deal and we won't be making a loss anymore spending circa 15-20m per year on fees. With regard to the future once the end of this huge 3 year loss period is over and players like Bent/Given/N'Zogbia's contracts have all run down we should be in a very healthy position moving forward as not only will we continue to have 15 - 20m a year to spend we will have also freed up a large portion of the budget for wages and be able to spend that extra 10m euros a year (30m euros over 3 years) IF Randy wants to lose money again as it can't be done in the form of a loan now but as a capital injection from his own pocket.
  5. few a couple of million you can't really go that wrong on a bet like this. Turns out well and you makes many times more back on his fee if it goes average you paid the right price and badly someone else will give him a go due to age and apparent talent.
  6. Is that wrong Richard? I was reliably informed it counts?
  7. The accounts to be presented in about 7 or 8 weeks will show an improvement for last and this year when they eventually come out. Maybe it will show to some fans just what our financial plan has been and what we can do going forward.
  8. I actually think we need two midfielders a box to box and an attacking midfielder. I was crying out for us to sign Sissoko before he went to Newcastle for 2m he would have been perfect for box to box on the cheap.
  9. I highly doubt it but you never know depends on the draws and on the day but it would take a lot of on our day and a lot of lucky draws I think
  10. It wont be the last time you see him in a Villa shirt I know that for sure. I know at this minute he doesn't think he is going in January and yes that is a bit of ITK info from me for once.
  11. Awww someone doesn't get sarcasm.
  12. 8 Players out, 10 men down to a Utd team that has won 6 on the bounce and we only drew with them!! Lamberk out
  13. Well that is opinion I don't agree nor disagree it depends on the buyers motives. Mine isn't opinion it is fact unless he fancies a 50m fine per year to get us there.
  14. Don't forget though regardless who takes us over if it is true......... there are still FFP rules so don't jizz your pants. I seem to have two accounts too :/
  15. Our greatest fail was whoever else we were after instead of heskey. Pretty much anyone else meant champions league
  16. The perfect place for Benteke was Chelsea in summer 2014 before they signed Costa.
  17. Mon finished 6th with the 6th highest in the league spending. With respect that is par for what is spent countering your point. We can't spend that kind of money anymore as there is new rules and we don't generate it hence the cut backs. Lambert has brought better than mon when spending decent money.
  18. If you don't care you are dumb there are FFP rules to adhere to and we can't waste what little resources we have. 8m will buy us a better player than tom
  19. Bertrand was definitely better but way more expensive he's been decent for the 1.75m we paid
  20. If he leaves in jan for the 5-8m quoted I will be happy as I think we could buy a proven quality replacement. He would have to be replaced though this is our top centre back we are talking about not third choice. Midfielders can be brought out of our original season budget which we know we have at least 8m left of.
  21. Potential buyers are put off for a number of reasons. Location Cost of making us competitive for the champions league Low cost of tickets loss making club if we pay average wages And the big one FFP Profit and loss including amortisation
  22. The loans will be part of a sale price I think
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.