Last Set of Accounts

[smetrov]

No.  Accounting standards say that all transfers have to be accounted for in the same way.  And nobody can count wages as part of the transfer in the accounts.

 

Agreed - but general speak is unregulated - I agree the accounts are the 'gold standard' - to be blunt we haven't got those players at the fee's Lambo has stated recently.

[TRO]

Tell me John, what relation to wages was it when we won the league under Ron Saunders.

 

was we the highest payer of wages during 1981/1982 season.

[Big_John_10]

Tell me John, what relation to wages was it when we won the league under Ron Saunders.

was we the highest payer of wages during 1981/1982 season.

Bit random

What's your point?

[Skruff]

Edit: nvm.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Skruff

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

I think the projected income was based on two things:

1) Qualification for the CL proper. The huge boost in income would've, I'm guessing, covered our arses with the huge wages being paid to players with no sell on value.

2) The club mistakenly thinking that a few increases in prices such as those for tickets, merchandise, food and beer wouldn't be met with such derision from a bunch of whinging Brummies not liking it because their pie increased by 30p.

As for the accounts, I'm not sure how they can be disputed. That figure should be considered correct, surely!?

[smetrov]

I think the projected income was based on two things:

1) Qualification for the CL proper. The huge boost in income would've, I'm guessing, covered our arses with the huge wages being paid to players with no sell on value.

2) The club mistakenly thinking that a few increases in prices such as those for tickets, merchandise, food and beer wouldn't be met with such derision from a bunch of whinging Brummies not liking it because their pie increased by 30p.

As for the accounts, I'm not sure how they can be disputed. That figure should be considered correct, surely!?

 

I think it has - those figures in Lambo was spouting in the press conference can not be correct. 

[Pez1974]

The date the accounts were submitted would mean the note in question would cover transfers in Summer 2012 and January 2013 and these total £21m.

The wording in the accounts states players (and not staff) so any compensation for Lambert and co would be excluded.

The full cost associated with acquiring an asset (or in some cases a liability) would be included in he acquisition costs, so agents fees and signing on fees would be included, but definitely not wages. I think it is highly unlikely that additional fees from previous transfers (i.e. Bent) would not have been provided in previous accounts so would not be in this figure.

I suppose the only question (for those who care) would be whether the lower figures alluded to by Lambert for some players would leave a gap which could be accounted for by agents and signing on fees. For example, if Benteke did 'cost' £7m, would this be an additional couple of million for other upfront costs? Or more?

Frankly, **** knows!

I have said for a while that football is a prime target for money laundering possibilities (not suggesting we do that, but it seems possible) because of the amount of money going around, and because of the amount of different people in different tax regimes each receiving a bit. This has happened in Italy quite a bit over recent years, especially on the back of loan deals.

The solution? Make the home FA of the purchasing club responsible for handling all funds, and make them publish the full details for every transfer. Seems simple to me!

[Dodgyknees]

Could it include payments for Bent/N'Zogbia etc for any add ons over time?

Edited November 27, 2013 by dodgyknees

[suttonpaul]

Yes!

[TRO]

Big John

 

I have never read a post on here of any fans accusing O'Neill of not controlling finances.....buying shit players yes, which eventually leads to poor income, maybe agreeing inflated wages for players not working out and not being able to recover the same funds spent on signing those players

 

I'm not sure how many times we have to spell it out what we are saying, but you still insist in defaulting back to financial controlling in isolation of other factors.

 

My suspicion is/was that had the majority of players bought, been of merchantable quality, as opposed to the minority,issues like wages and lack of income may not have been realised as an issue as revenue would have negated them.

[ciggiesnbeer]

Reads to me like Randy has continued his recent policy of 20 million a season on transfers with an insistence the wages get balanced over time.

 

Seems more than fair.

[Big_John_10]

Reads to me like Randy has continued his recent policy of 20 million a season on transfers with an insistence the wages get balanced over time.

Seems more than fair.

Even though hairy hands had said he spent £10 million in the summer and we're still limited by low wages.

[Big_John_10]

Big John

I have never read a post on here of any fans accusing O'Neill of not controlling finances.....buying shit players yes, which eventually leads to poor income, maybe agreeing inflated wages for players not working out and not being able to recover the same funds spent on signing those players

I'm not sure how many times we have to spell it out what we are saying, but you still insist in defaulting back to financial controlling in isolation of other factors.

My suspicion is/was that had the majority of players bought, been of merchantable quality, as opposed to the minority,issues like wages and lack of income may not have been realised as an issue as revenue would have negated them.

Your opinion of the player had no relevance to the money they earn and how that compared to our income.

The only way we could possibly have sustained that spending would have been to qualify for the champions league. And actually I don't think that would have been a long term fix.

That discussion has been done to death. And if you look at spurs and city it seems stopped to suggest were should have done it.

Spending got to a damaging level, the man controlling finances is to blame for that.

[ciggiesnbeer]

 

Reads to me like Randy has continued his recent policy of 20 million a season on transfers with an insistence the wages get balanced over time.

Seems more than fair.

Even though hairy hands had said he spent £10 million in the summer and we're still limited by low wages.

 

 

Also possible Lambert is keeping some of his money for January? That midfield role we need perhaps?

[briny_ear]

 

 

 

 

 

Also possible Lambert is keeping some of his money for January? That midfield role we need perhaps?

 

No. According to the accounts, £21.7m has been spent on transfers when Lambert claims it's £10m. That's what this thread is about.

 

I would also mention that it's not "Lambert's" money. 

[supernova26]

So 20 million vs 10 million -nobody knows?

 

Add-on's and wages (full their full contract length) maybe included as it's all exposed money, if not money spent. 

 

My credit report will say I have 10k exposure on my credit card but I may have only spent £5k...but the exposure figure is the key one.

 

This is guess work on my part but would seem plausible? 

Edited November 29, 2013 by supernova26

[briny_ear]

It's not wages - see innumerable posts from Risso above patiently explaining that wages aren't  included in transfer fees.

[ozvillafan]

It's not wages - see innumerable posts from Risso above patiently explaining that wages aren't  included in transfer fees.

 

Bonuses?

 

If we agreed a bonus on performance for some (most) of our Lambert purchases, would that be included as a transfer fee? Or only once the bonus is realised?

[smetrov]

So 20 million vs 10 million -nobody knows?

 

Add-on's and wages (full their full contract length) maybe included as it's all exposed money, if not money spent. 

 

My credit report will say I have 10k exposure on my credit card but I may have only spent £5k...but the exposure figure is the key one.

 

This is guess work on my part but would seem plausible? 

 

We do know its £20m - Risso has disproved all other theories ie payments for previous players, payment in installments & definitley not wages

 

What we don't know is why Lambert is saying the figures are lower

Edited November 29, 2013 by smetrov

[Pez1974]

Could it include payments for Bent/N'Zogbia etc for any add ons over time?

 

No - there is no reason why any add on's would not have been provided for upon purchase. It would be tax deductable (and any losses can be carried forward) and prudent. It would also be required, unless there was some 'bizarre' clause which would be unlikely to occur.

 

 

It's not wages - see innumerable posts from Risso above patiently explaining that wages aren't  included in transfer fees.

 

Bonuses?

 

If we agreed a bonus on performance for some (most) of our Lambert purchases, would that be included as a transfer fee? Or only once the bonus is realised?

 

 

No, nothing like bonuses either. They would be treated as wages and accrued when they are earned.

 

Accounts, for all the clever accountancy shite, are fairly straighforward and auditors would not let you put something in that could be misleading. The £21m is on transfers, nothing else. This will include all costs associated with the transfer, such as agents fees and signing on fees, but nothing that would be paid and incurred over time.

Basically, footballers are employees, and companies do not account for your wages for the year in advance. They account for them on a weekly or monthly basis, as they become due to you.

 

My guess is that the amount of lower and 'lesser' league transfers has resulted in a number of players coming in on lower upfront fees, but with add ons for their potential. I think this could easily explain the variance, and to be fair, would back up both what Lambert has said and what the accounts show.

For example - say Westwood cost £1m upfront, with an additional £1m if he played for England, and another £1m based upon appearances. This would probably be in the accounts at £3m, but may only ever cost us £1m. I would expect the additional £2m to be shown in the accounts as provisions, but can't be arsed to get the accounts and start digging (and then get into the debate over whether the appearence fees should be accrued per appearance or upfront) - I do this for a living and support the Villa to get away from it!