Villa latest accounts

[cudoz]

 

 

STAFF COSTS (All Players, Coaching Staff AND Directors) £61.6m Including national insurance payments which accounts for 7.9m of that.

We now have 1,601 employees (2012 - 1,740) which includes 12 more playing staff or coaches.  The other figures are correct.

 

Risso's post and your post yesterday said that staff costs were £71.8 million.

Which is correct - £71.8m or £61.6m?

 

I mis-read his post.  I thought he had posted that it was c.£62m plus c.£8m social security.

Staff costs are £71.8m, including social security costs.  

Breakdown.

Staff Salaries - £62.6m 

Social Security - £8.7m

Pension costs - £0.4m

(Figures are rounded)

Edited March 6, 2014 by cudoz

[KHV]

I agree about Okore and Kovzak,  £4m and £7m players wouldn't come for YTS money.

Kozak was only on about 6000€ at Lazio

[KHV]

Am i correct in thinking though that everything which could possibly be put through during that set of accounts was done to kind of clear the decks once and forall? which kind of makes it look bad but the truth is the clubs finances are now actually quite rosy? But we won't see the on paper evidence of this until next years accounts are published?

 

Coz thats how i'm reading it... And the real facts are the club is now fully self sufficient. 

 

Now we also know i believe that the new Premier League money doesn't get paid out completely until the end of the season from what was said during the summer and we also have a large gap set to appear on the wage bill once Hutton, Bent, Given, Delfounso, Nzogbia and a couple of others are cleared out... So there actually will be room for some renewed spending in the summer surely?.. Add to that any funds gained from player sales and you can see the light at the end of the tunnel fast approaching.

 

So with the Norwich win vastly improving our probability of staying up things are actually looking promising in my opinion... Now for a shock win against Chelsea please!

I can't see us clearing Given,Hutton,Bent,Nzogbia or the Fonz though

[snowychap]

I mis-read his post.  I thought he had posted that it was c.£62m plus c.£8m social security.

Staff costs are £71.8m, including social security costs.  

Breakdown.

Staff Salaries - £62.6m 

Social Security - £8.7m

Pension costs - £0.4m

(Figures are rounded)

No worries.

Cheers for clearing that up.

[briny_ear]

Id love to know how teams like Liverpool are staying afloat.

 

Even with double the merchandising they should be in real trouble, but you dont hear anything like that from them.

 

Oh yes, you do...mind you, this isn't really for this thread.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/04/liverpool-financial-fair-play-50m-annual-loss-accounts

 

 

Liverpool announce annual loss of £50m in new club accounts

• £50m lost before tax in figures to end of May 2013

• Club's ability to obey Uefa's financial fair play rules in doubt

• David Conn

•  
• The Guardian,  Tuesday 4 March 2014 11.03 GMT

Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, praised the club's owners, Fenway Sports Group as 'smart investors'. Photograph: Tom Jenkins for The Guardian.

 

Liverpool made a £50m loss in the 2012-13 financial year, according to the club's annual accounts. The figures, for the year to 31 May 2013, show that the club made an operating profit of £15m but were pushed into the heavy loss by the writing down of players' contracts, an accounting requirement, and a £13m loss on the sale of players.

 

The £50m loss, which follows £41m reported for a ten-month period to 31 May 2011, appears to put Liverpool's total loss very much higher than the €45m (£37m) total permitted by Uefa for this two-year period under its financial fair play rules. The club, which stated that the figures show it is making "good progress" financially, did not comment on whether it is likely to be considered in breach of FFP when Uefa assesses clubs in the next two months. The rules do, however, include exemptions Premier League clubs expect to rely on in order to pass, including expenditure on youth development, stadium and other infrastructure, which Uefa encourages, and an allowance for players' contracts entered into before the rules came into force in 2010.

 

The accounts predate the summer signings, which included Simon Mignolet for £9m from Sunderland and Mamadou Sakho, £18m from Paris Saint-Germain, and the £15m sale of Andy Carroll to West Ham, for whom Liverpool paid £35m in the early months of ownership by the Boston-based Fenway Sports Group. The total net spending on these players to augment Brendan Rodgers's squad was £53m, the accounts state.

 

FSG in 2012-13 made a loan to Liverpool of £47m to repay a £38m loan taken out to develop stadium plans, and reduce bank debt by £9m. That was in addition to the £22m FSG had, net, loaned to give ballast to the club's finances since it took over from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in 2010, taking FSG's outstanding loans to Liverpool to £69m. The £200m the club owed to Royal Bank of Scotland at the time of the bitterly contested takeover was paid off by FSG effectively as the price of taking over the club.

 

That loan from FSG, together with Liverpool's borrowing from banks, which was £48m, meant that the club's net debt at 31 May last year was £114m, up from £87m the previous year. That is before FSG commits Liverpool to the expansion of Anfield, after the scrapping of the long-standing plans for a new stadium on Stanley Park; the local council is currently buying up neighbouring houses as part of the redevelopment plan. Liverpool have made it clear they will borrow substantially to fund the stadium expansion.

 

The club's income showed a relatively modest increase to £206m in 2012-13 from the £169m reported for a ten-month period to 31 May 2011 in the previous accounts. That was mostly accounted for by significantly increased commercial income, up from £64m to £98m due to sponsorship deals, which are a priority for the managing director, Ian Ayre, under FSG's ownership. FSG has from the beginning of its ownership been focused on the worldwide following Liverpool have, and is intent on pursuing the international multiple sponsorships pioneered by Manchester United.

 

Liverpool's wage bill, £132m, was not excessive for the current financial size of the club, representing 64% of turnover, towards the upper end of what is generally considered healthy. Nor does that scale of pay, mostly to the players, put Liverpool in the top bracket of Premier League clubs. Manchester United, who won the title in Sir Alex Ferguson's final year, paid £181m in wages in 2012-13, while Manchester City's wage bill under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi was £233m, more than £100m in excess of Liverpool's.

 

The highest paid director at Liverpool was paid a salary package of £1.035m; it is presumed to be Ayre, as he is the only full-time director on the board of the club. The other directors are John Henry, Tom Werner and David Ginsberg, all of FSG, which owns the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise, and Michael Gordon, who founded the Vinik investment firm in Boston and is also a Red Sox board member.

 

Ayre praised FSG as "smart investors" who continue to invest in Liverpool, with loans, "to realise the true value of their investment long term". He also said that with the much-improved performances on the pitch under Rodgers and increasing commercial income, the club is heading towards financial stability, although the 2012-13 figures show the deficit from not competing in the European Champions League.

 

"These results demonstrate that the financial health of the club continues to make good progress," Ayre told the Liverpool Echo. "We have taken a measured approach to bring back financial stability to this great club by ensuring it is properly structured on and off the pitch."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[suttonpaul]

Anyone who wants a copy of the accounts just PM me your email and I'll send it over to you.

 

I'll be honest I'm confused

[Risso]

 

Id love to know how teams like Liverpool are staying afloat.

Even with double the merchandising they should be in real trouble, but you dont hear anything like that from them.

They made a £50m loss didn't they?

 

 

UEFA have confirmed that only clubs playing in the Champions League are being looked at for FFP rules.  If Liverpool qualify this year, they'll be assessed for the first time next year with any sanctions (yeah, right) the year after.

[DelboyVilla]

So is this £42m loss a real cash/money loss or just accounts books losses on paper?

 

If it is a real cash money loss is Lerner putting his had in his pocket again to bail us out?

 

The way I see it is that half the loss is the £20m on transfers and the other half on paying off players contracts ie if Warnock went to Leeds for £0m fee and agreed a wage of £10k per week and he was on £50k per week with us and had 6 months left on his contract then we owed him 26 weeks at £40k per week = £1,040,000.00.

 

Plus would we have paid off McLeish and his staff in that financial year?

 

Is this correct?

[suttonpaul]

No idea, I'm baffled by staff costs and admin costs just for a start.

[dukes]

 

 

 

So with my very unqualified eyes i read that as 43m loss but next years report should read that were not operating at a loss anymore?

Again extremely unqualified but i find it hard to believe we'll go from 43m loss to breaking even in a year.

New TV money minus wages of players left would probably see us in the black for next year

And surely the figure for next year won't include the interest payments on the £90M debt that has now been wiped out by Randy.

I don't understand how anyone can ignore these facts, the figures up until May 2013 as a standalone would be disappointing, but add in the removal of debt and the increase in a TV revenue, plus further reduction in player wages (removal of a Given, Bent, Hutton and N'Zogbia), and the figures for the current financial year look very encouraging.

 

 

How is that you think the removal of debt is going to make any difference?  There was no interest charged on any loans this year. Lerner had written off last year's interest, and not charged any this year.  So there won't be any improvement in the P&L based on interest.  All the debt to equity conversion will do is present the information in a better light.  it doesn't affect our profitability or our cashflow.

 

 

Well unless RL had agreed never to take the interest on the debt it leaves us in a position where he can't charge us interest as the debt no longer exists.

[dukes]

 

Just realised those players won't be removed from the 2013-2014 accounts, but this years accounts won't include Ireland, Dunne, Collins and Warnock

 

 

Collins left in August 2012.

 

The next set of accounts won't show the wages of Ireland, Dunne and Warnock. However they will now include the wages of Kozak, Luna, Tonev, Helnius, Okore and Bacuna. They will also include the much improved contracts that Benteke, Weimann, Westwood and Lowton signed last summer.

 

 

And therefore a portion of his wages will appear in these accounts.

 

I don't think we'll be worse off for the removal of the players you mention even with the addition of the new players and better contracts of the others.

Edited March 6, 2014 by dukes

[dukes]

It seems to me we and most other premier league teams are playing a very dangerous game, the only real growth in revenue comes from TV money, but there is no guarantee that the money will always be there.

 

Unfortunately for us, Gate Receipts, Sponsorship, Commercial are hardly moving.

 

If TV money is 50% of turnover, how do we cope if it drops even by 10%, what if the big clubs breakaway and form a European League, or just demand a bigger slice of the revenue as they are the bigger draw.

[Risso]

He wasn't going to charge interest anyway, which is my point.  And half of the debt does still exist.

[snowychap]

Well unless RL had agreed never to take the interest on the debt it leaves us in a position where he can't charge us interest as the debt no longer exists.

Wasn't Risso's point in reply to your comment 'and surely the figure for next year won't include the interest payments on...', i.e. the figure for this FY doesn't include any interest payments and thus there will be no material difference between the two years? Edited March 6, 2014 by snowychap

[Risso]

Exactly what I was getting at Snowy.

 

The accounts say that this is "largesse" and we look forward to "a good platform for a sustainable future for the Club in the Premier League".

 

Be still my beating heart.

[CannockVillan]

The capitalisation of £90m!!

Well isn't that just taking money out of one of his pockets to put it into the other?

It does concern me now that there appears to be a staging for sale going on here. With the new Sky contract kicking in this year the club's income will have increased significantly (as a proportion of total turnover) whilst costs continue to be driven down.

That said not many people buy companies on turnover. So will be interesting to see what the profit and loss account shows next year!

[dukes]

 

Well unless RL had agreed never to take the interest on the debt it leaves us in a position where he can't charge us interest as the debt no longer exists.

Wasn't Risso's point in reply to your comment 'and surely the figure for next year won't include the interest payments on...', i.e. the figure for this FY doesn't include any interest payments and thus there will be no material difference between the two years?

 

 

 

My bad

[DelboyVilla]

Not many people buy football clubs for the profit either?

 

Lerner's own valuation of the club will not have changed whether the money he has put in is a loan or to buy shares?

 

Would Lerner get any personal tax breaks if he changes the money from being a loan to shares? ie could he write off the money against he own tax bill for a £90m loss? Remember the Lerner trust has just received a large amount of money from the sale of the Browns?

[suttonpaul]

I need certain figures explained in detail if I am to carry on supporting 'the plan' as on the face of it which I am pretty sure is much worse than it actually is costs have been driven down but costs are still way too high to spend 20m a year on smaller amounts of new players who will command bigger wages even with a new TV deal.

 

I'm not waiting another year for that either whilst being a supporter of what is going on at the club it is too much to ask.

[Big_John_10]

Exactly what I was getting at Snowy.

The accounts say that this is "largesse" and we look forward to "a good platform for a sustainable future for the Club in the Premier League".

Be still my beating heart.

Haha this plan looks so exciting.