Last Set of Accounts

[briny_ear]

Well, it wouldn't really back up what Lambert says, would it? To stay on the straight and narrow he would need to say, "player X didn't cost as much as you've read in the press and, as long as they prove to be not much cop for us, that's the way it will stay."

BTW, although theoretically possible, it seems implausible that Crewe would have agreed to take part of their fee only if Westy plays for England. Far more likely to be on performances, I would have thought.

I think it's hard to get away from thinking about. Villa's finances given the state we are in, so I suspect the accounts will go on being a hot topic.

[CannockVillan]

Please can everyone read Pez's post a page back.

 

The fees of £21m relate to Summer 2012 and January 2013.  They do not delve into anything else and so this summer's transfer fees are not included.

 

The consolidated group accounts for 31.5.12 were filed on 5.3.13 before the end of last season and therefore prior to this summer's transfer activity.

 

The cost of the transfers this summer will therefore fall in the next accounts (on the same noting basis as identified earlier) and so no one knows what we spent this summer other than those at the club in the know.

 

i assume therefore (forgive me if some of my dates are out here) that the figure in the 2012 accounts relates to people like;

 

BENTEKE, Sylla, Dawkins, Westwood, Lowton, Vlaar, Bowery, Bennett, El Ahmadi, as well as (possibly)  contracts given to some of the juniors at the club who may have received their first pro contracts at that time.

 

So the likes of Kozak, Okore, Tonev, Luna, Helenius, Bacuna and Steer aren't yet showing!

 

Also the figures are net and so as some have previously stated this will have taken into account all costs associated with the trasnfers including for example signing on fees, agent's fees, legal fees and any other direct transfer costs.

Edited November 29, 2013 by CannockVillan

[ciggiesnbeer]

I did wonder about the timing. Now it makes sense if it is for last season. So Randy's 20 million ish per year holds true.

 

Why is Lambert downplaying the numbers put about? No idea, probably some are reported higher than reality, some under. or he could just be talking some shite as managers do   

 

My guess is he still has some budget left for January, out of this years 20M.

[smetrov]

I did wonder about the timing. Now it makes sense if it is for last season. So Randy's 20 million ish per year holds true.

 

Why is Lambert downplaying the numbers put about? No idea, probably some are reported higher than reality, some under. or he could just be talking some shite as managers do 

 

My guess is he still has some budget left for January, out of this years 20M.

 

 

Faulkner has recently stated that Lamberts gross spend to date is £43m - basically that means that higher fees reported are one going into the accounts - not the Lambo adjusted figures - so he roughly spent £20m this summer.

 

Conclusion then Lowton cost considerably more than the £800k lambo suggested - and Benteke's fee was closed to £7m than £4m 

 

Whilst we don't the figure in the accounts for this summer it is fair to assume that - Bacuna and Luna were close to the £1.5m fee's reported , than the Lambo suggested £800k 

Edited November 29, 2013 by smetrov

[Zatman]

Where are these quotes of Faulkner mentioning 43million?

[smetrov]

Where are these quotes of Faulkner mentioning 43million?

 

In the many transcripts of his recent meeting with the supporters trust

[ciggiesnbeer]

 

I did wonder about the timing. Now it makes sense if it is for last season. So Randy's 20 million ish per year holds true.

 

Why is Lambert downplaying the numbers put about? No idea, probably some are reported higher than reality, some under. or he could just be talking some shite as managers do 

 

My guess is he still has some budget left for January, out of this years 20M.

 

 

Faulkner has recently stated that Lamberts gross spend to date is £43m - basically that means that higher fees reported are one going into the accounts - not the Lambo adjusted figures - so he roughly spent £20m this summer.

 

Conclusion then Lowton cost considerably more than the £800k lambo suggested - and Benteke's fee was closed to £7m than £4m 

 

Whilst we don't the figure in the accounts for this summer it is fair to assume that - Bacuna and Luna were close to the £1.5m fee's reported , than the Lambo suggested £800k 

 

 

Thanks. Well in that case yeah, we are probably done for shopping (outside of freebies) this season then.

[Rovers13]

I know nothing about football finances except football manager so I'm just going to throw this out there and it could be 100% wrong. Could the transfer expenditure in the accounts include agent fees and loyalty bonuses to the players, and not just the fee paid to the other club, whereas lambert is only mentioning the fee paid to the other club?

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rovers13

[The Fun Factory]

I would suggest either Lambert is downplaying the money spent to show that he is a decent manager with a limited budget (getting near new contract time) or to show other clubs that we dont have the money like in previous years and they have to be realistic if we make transfer bids to potential new players. Or he is doing both. Either that or he is covinced on what he has spent as his time as the Villa manager.

[briny_ear]

Please can everyone read Pez's post a page back.

 

The fees of £21m relate to Summer 2012 and January 2013.  They do not delve into anything else and so this summer's transfer fees are not included.

 

 

 

 

Don't think that's ever been in dispute has it? The issue is whether the figures tally with the prices Lambert has been quoting for purchases during the period,

[Panto_Villan]

I suspect that a fair amount of the shortfall is made up by player signing-on bonuses, given we signed 11 players in that period if the average was only £250k each then you've got about £3m there.

 

Benteke was £7m, Vlaar was £3m and KEA was £2.5m, right? So there's £12.5m right there, and £3m in signing on fees would mean a collective £6m paid for Lowton, Westwood, Sylla, Bowery and Bennett.

 

But even if that's true, Lambert's still being selective with his figures - it'd be a bit disingenuous to imply we got people cheap because the other club didn't receive all the money we paid.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Panto_Villan

[P3te]

 

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.

 

Lambert said we spent £10m this summer just gone, did he not? The accounts don't cover the summer just gone I thought?

[briny_ear]

 

 

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.

 

Lambert said we spent £10m this summer just gone, did he not? The accounts don't cover the summer just gone I thought?

 

It's slightly more complex than that but I think I'm getting bored with going over the same issues again and again.

[VillaForever1970]

Is the single point of this thread to have a pop at the owner again? Is there not a million of these threads already?

[smetrov]

Is the single point of this thread to have a pop at the owner again? Is there not a million of these threads already?

 

Actually quite the opposite. The CEO of the club and notes in the accounts say £21M spent into the first 2 windows of his reign. Where as Lambert is implying it is much less than that. The weight of the facts is that the accounts are correct and the higher figure has been spent. 

[TRO]

when appraising a managers performance ....monies paid out for players, I presume would be pretty significant in terms of debate with the board.

 

so the lower the manager can declare it, the better argument they can muster with the board.

 

would seem pretty feasible a manager low balling his outlay.

[Rovers13]

when appraising a managers performance ....monies paid out for players, I presume would be pretty significant in terms of debate with the board.

so the lower the manager can declare it, the better argument they can muster with the board.

would seem pretty feasible a manager low balling his outlay.

But the board would know what was actually paid, right? So how would that help at all?

[villan_007]

So for those of us who are not accounts savy what's the general conclusion from this?

 

Is it Faulkner and the accounts say £43mill spent, but that doesn't include this window? Which means it can't all of been spent by lambert?

[Isa]

No, Faulkner said Lambert has had £43m to spend. Though when exactly was that supporter's trust meeting? Wasn't it before we signed Kozak which would mean that the £43m doesn't include the Kozak money?

[SikhInTrinity]

The supporters trust meeting was after deadline day.