cudoz Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 To put SuttonPaul's mind at ease. The 1.8m Administrative loss in 2012 has been turned into a 15.8m Administrative profit in 2013. These figures are in Aston Villa FC Ltd's accounts. Administrative expenses themselves are 600k less than 2012 at £65m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks mate So where is the money lost then with the exception of buying players and wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudoz Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks mate So where is the money lost then with the exception of buying players and wages? Aston Villa FC's Ltd's (the accounts you have) loss is mainly accounted for in respect of Wages and Amortisation. Wages, for example, are 93% of our administrative costs. The loss has increased from 2012 due to the increase in exceptional items and loss on disposal of players (profit in 2012). Reform Acquisitions includes the above items but looks worse due Randy writing of £20m of interest due to him in the 2012 accounts. If we ignore the exceptional items (accelerated write down in player value, interest write off and profit on players in 2012) the figures are better than 2012. The "fun" world of accounting eh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't understand any of this, though I do struggle to manage my own current account effectively so not too surprising. Can someone just unequivocally confirm if we're doing better financially than we were three years ago please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Can someone explain something for a non-accountant please? Did we make a real loss in that we have paid out more cash than we received in and therefore had to hand over multiple millions to someone/some companies? Or is it a purely paper loss writing off players early but not actually paying the money out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Can someone explain something for a non-accountant please? Did we make a real loss in that we have paid out more cash than we received in and therefore had to hand over multiple millions to someone/some companies? Or is it a purely paper loss writing off players early but not actually paying the money out? If you take out the amortisation and other exceptional items we still lost £22m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudoz Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Two different ways of looking at it: One is the way Risso has. The other is to look at the cash flow statement which shows the cash received and paid out during the year. In this respect we had an operational deficit of £19.6m and an outflow on players / tangible assets of £20.6m. All that means is that we had to borrow money from Randy during the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Two different ways of looking at it: One is the way Risso has. The other is to look at the cash flow statement which shows the cash received and paid out during the year. In this respect we had an operational deficit of £19.6m and an outflow on players / tangible assets of £20.6m. All that means is that we had to borrow money from Randy during the year. Indeed and even with the increase in TV money, we'll probably still need cash to improve the squad in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 10, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) I'll leave you folks to it sorry for posting my opinion It was perfectly valid opinion as far as I can tell. Someone was looking for an argument. Edited March 10, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Someone was looking for an argument.No, I wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks Lads. So even after all the cost cutting and 4 years of struggling we still need funding from Lerner! Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Cheers Cudoz we can now simply say we lost 20m last season when not taking into account the falling value of assets on the books which as far as I know in the case of a football team means sod all. Which leads us to another point........ Now that we lost 20m which funnily enough is roughly the net value of the player transfers for that season with the increased TV money that loss is covered. Therefore my hypothesis (lol) is that if we spend 20m a season without increasing the wage bill the club breaks roughly even, is FFP compliant and has a decent base to move forward on. It is therefore very important to get rid of the rest of the bomb squad off the books and players like N'Zogbia who are on high wages and don't play on match day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Cheers Cudoz we can now simply say we lost 20m last season when not taking into account the falling value of assets on the books which as far as I know in the case of a football team means sod all. Which leads us to another point........ Now that we lost 20m which funnily enough is roughly the net value of the player transfers for that season with the increased TV money that loss is covered. Therefore my hypothesis (lol) is that if we spend 20m a season without increasing the wage bill the club breaks roughly even, is FFP compliant and has a decent base to move forward on. It is therefore very important to get rid of the rest of the bomb squad off the books and players like N'Zogbia who are on high wages and don't play on match day. Some thoughts on likely future spending plans. Our non TV income is extremely stable and has been about £37m for the last two years, so assume it stays the same next year. Our TV money was £45m this year, which was the last year of the old TV deal. This year, Sporting Intelligence estimate that the team finishing 14th (which I think is a realistic position for Villa but I can provide anthing else if you like) will take home between £66m and £80m, depending on overseas income. Let's use the mean and say £73m That would make our total income £110m (37+73). If after the recent further cut backs, our wage bill drops to say, £65m, it would leave £45m in the post. Take off the £20m of other expenses, and there's £25m of "cash" for improving the team. Amortisation would wipe out most of this leading to us breaking even in a P&L sense, but this would still leave the cash amount for team strengthening. It'd be about what Lambert has had per year for the last two years, but hopefully he could use it to try and buy some higher quality players. If he's still here. Obviously if the other variables are different (eg if sponsorship income drops, or overseas income for the TV deal is less, or wages don't drop by as much) then the total reduces accordingly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Ah wicked so I am roughly right. Just to tie up this point as the new season would be the full blown tv money at the end of it does that technically mean we could spend 40 the summer after assuming nothing changes or have you taken that into account already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 The only problem which I didn't mention is that if you buy 3 decent players for say, £8m each, then they're probably going to want £2m+ a year wages each, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Not only that but the quite substantial increase in TV revenue is surely going to lead to increased pay expectations from players (and managers and coaches). Edited March 10, 2014 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Staff costs UP £2.3m to £72m Not quite the predictions/guesses we've had over the last year on here, is it? Step forward VillaCas with his assertion that the wage bill would be down to £35m! http://www.villatalk.com/index.php/topic/10485-why-paul-lambert-should-get-the-sack/page-67#entry1175557 Haha, nice try Risso but as you well know I was talking about the cost of players actually used by Lambert versus the cost of players available to McL Haha, nice try, but it's there in black and white: "Only in your fantasy world would you expect someone going from a £70m a year to a £35m a year wage bill to "improve" the squad!" Which, as it turns out, was the most wildly inaccurate ball park figure ever. It is in black and white and it reflected the fact that Lambert was utilising about half the resources that McL had available. Obviously players like Ireland, Bent, Hutton and Given are included in the wage bill but weren't utilised by Lambert. My point as you we'll know was to do with what the players on the pitch cost and the relative expectation of performance we should have not an estimate of the annual cost of 1200 employees I must really have gotten to you to make you search out a six month old mis-quote! Chill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Not only that but the quite substantial increase in TV revenue is surely going to lead to increased pay expectations from players (and managers and coaches). Probably just British ones though. Foreigners getting poor wages by PL standards are still on way more than they could ever have dreamed of elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yea of course they will want the wages but it is up to us to stay within our budget now that it is all straight so if that means not paying the wages a player wants if it is over the top of the budget simply don't sign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted March 11, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2014 Cheers Cudoz we can now simply say we lost 20m last season when not taking into account the falling value of assets on the books which as far as I know in the case of a football team means sod all. Which leads us to another point........ Now that we lost 20m which funnily enough is roughly the net value of the player transfers for that season with the increased TV money that loss is covered. Therefore my hypothesis (lol) is that if we spend 20m a season without increasing the wage bill the club breaks roughly even, is FFP compliant and has a decent base to move forward on. It is therefore very important to get rid of the rest of the bomb squad off the books and players like N'Zogbia who are on high wages and don't play on match day. Some thoughts on likely future spending plans. Our non TV income is extremely stable and has been about £37m for the last two years, so assume it stays the same next year. Our TV money was £45m this year, which was the last year of the old TV deal. This year, Sporting Intelligence estimate that the team finishing 14th (which I think is a realistic position for Villa but I can provide anthing else if you like) will take home between £66m and £80m, depending on overseas income. Let's use the mean and say £73m That would make our total income £110m (37+73). If after the recent further cut backs, our wage bill drops to say, £65m, it would leave £45m in the post. Take off the £20m of other expenses, and there's £25m of "cash" for improving the team. Amortisation would wipe out most of this leading to us breaking even in a P&L sense, but this would still leave the cash amount for team strengthening. It'd be about what Lambert has had per year for the last two years, but hopefully he could use it to try and buy some higher quality players. If he's still here. Obviously if the other variables are different (eg if sponsorship income drops, or overseas income for the TV deal is less, or wages don't drop by as much) then the total reduces accordingly. 2 things for me here, great post by the way... 1. On those estimates that would put wages as 60% of turnover more or less right? That's fantastic! A great base to move on from right? 2. If Bent, Given and Hutton all get off the books this summer then that frees up money to pay some new arrivals (along with the increased revenue helping too). Surely things are looking up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts