Villa latest accounts

[snowychap]

 

 

Do remember though this is for 2012/2013 , we sold no players for any significant value during this period. In the years previous we were making huge losses which were being offset by the sales of Downing, Milner and Young. That's why , I'm guessing, these figures aren't as positive as we would have hoped.

And what does that say about 2013/14 and the years beyond, do you think?

This year hopefully we will break even, thus being able to spend a similar amount of £20m in the summer on players but on fewer, more quality players, and not make a loss. Hopefully that will improve the team, and next season we will go up the table again as a result, creating more income. If a lot of other clubs find they are falling foul of the financial fair play rules then there may be a lot of panicking by clubs around or above us, making us even more competitive. This is the best case scenario I guess and would explain the plan under Lambert. This is assuming I understand the basics correctly.

 

How on earth do you get to what you have said from a quote and response to the particular bit about player registration trading?

My question wasn't wanting some kind of trite 'spend x on fewer but more quality players and then we can build' comment with no understanding of how player registration trading impacts upon the accounts; it was a hope that people may understand, by the couple of comments slipped out here by the club, that this would seem to have a large impact upon the club's finances (all other things being equal - TV revenue increases notwithstanding).

[terrytini]

Well whichever way you look at it we really can't have been very far at all from falling off a very big cliff indeed.

 

Now win some games, finish 10th and go into next season with a balanced but progressive amount of spending, and it might even be possible to enjoy it again !!

[sharkyvilla]

Do remember though this is for 2012/2013 , we sold no players for any significant value during this period. In the years previous we were making huge losses which were being offset by the sales of Downing, Milner and Young. That's why , I'm guessing, these figures aren't as positive as we would have hoped.

And what does that say about 2013/14 and the years beyond, do you think?

This year hopefully we will break even, thus being able to spend a similar amount of £20m in the summer on players but on fewer, more quality players, and not make a loss. Hopefully that will improve the team, and next season we will go up the table again as a result, creating more income. If a lot of other clubs find they are falling foul of the financial fair play rules then there may be a lot of panicking by clubs around or above us, making us even more competitive. This is the best case scenario I guess and would explain the plan under Lambert. This is assuming I understand the basics correctly.

How on earth do you get to what you have said from a quote and response to the particular bit about player registration trading?

My question wasn't wanting some kind of trite 'spend x on fewer but more quality players and then we can build' comment with no understanding of how player registration trading impacts upon the accounts; it was a hope that people may understand, by the couple of comments slipped out here by the club, that this would seem to have a large impact upon the club's finances (all other things being equal - TV revenue increases notwithstanding).

Sorry I read it as what will the future of the club be like in general, rather than on that specific point. My mistake

[OutByEaster?]

 

76 clubs being investigated by uefa re ffp. hopefully they're actually going to enforce this!

 

 

In a world where PSG are allowed to backdate insane sponsorship deals I seriously doubt UEFA will hammer anybody who is currently a regular in the big European competitions. Financial Fair Play seems to be about keeping clubs like us down. 

 

 

Man City have bought a US team that they can loan players to in order to remove their salaries for FFP - for the privilege of being linked with Man City, their US franchise (owned by the people who own Man City) are paying Man City something like $20m a season in 'consultancy fees' - money which goes onto their income and helps with FFP. All legal. All part of why FFP won't work.

 

Our accounts are baffling - the club appears to be shouting "Look how good these numbers are - we're losing a million pounds a week - hooray!"

 

They've waived the loan, which whilst it probably doesn't make a blind bit of difference to Randy Lerner, who is just moving his money round, I think makes the club look better on paper - whether that's part of a long term strategy for stability (dull, boring, never back in Europe ever stability) or for a short term strategy and a sale. (heads you win the Champions league, tails you play in orange and get relegated twice). I have no idea. 

 

Aren't these things supposed to make things clearer?

[snowychap]

Sorry I read it as what will the future of the club be like in general, rather than on that specific point. My mistake

Okay, no worries. Sorry for the vehemence of my reply.

Second time today I've had to apologize along those lines - I blame my dental treatment!

[jayEm]

It's amazing how many economists and accountants there are on this forum!

[NoelVilla]

It's amazing how many economists and accountants there are on this forum!

How many are there?

[snowychap]

 

It's amazing how many economists and accountants there are on this forum!

How many are there?

 

More than is socially useful.

[thetrees]

So a thread about nothing has reached 5 pages.

I assume that next week it will be a thread about something.

I have my credit checking agency on 'alert' for the moment!

[Dodgyknees]

So a thread about nothing has reached 5 pages.

I assume that next week it will be a thread about something.

I have my credit checking agency on 'alert' for the moment!

Yep, I'm not going by what the club tell me. Usually that is a load of bollocks, I will come to my own conclusions.

[snowychap]

So a thread about nothing has reached 5 pages.

I assume that next week it will be a thread about something.

I have my credit checking agency on 'alert' for the moment!

Why is it about nothing?

The statutory accounts may say more but, perhaps, there is more than enough to be read into (and from) the figures released by the club via the Mail.

[thetrees]

So a thread about nothing has reached 5 pages.I assume that next week it will be a thread about something.I have my credit checking agency on 'alert' for the moment!

Why is it about nothing?The statutory accounts may say more but, perhaps, there is more than enough to be read into (and from) the figures released by the club via the Mail.

Sorry, I missed the bit from the Birmingham Mirror. Everything is clear.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

Aston Villa have issued the following statement following the publication of their latest set of accounts, for the year ending May 31, 2013.

 

Aston Villa announces the waiving of £90.1m of loans from its parent company, vastly reducing the club’s debt load and accelerating the process towards long-term stability and

financial self-sufficiency. These loans were converted to equity in December 2013, further strengthening the Club’s capital base.

 

Turnover for the year ended May 31, 2013 was up £3.3m to £83.7m and operating expenses before exceptional items down £6.2m. The Club’s operating loss before exceptional items fell by £9.5m to £42.6m.

 

Robin Russell, chief financial officer, said: “The 2012-13 accounts effectively close a chapter on a period of heavy losses. As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”

 

Increase in turnover in 2012-13 was driven largely by improved on-pitch performance and a higher finish in the Barclays Premier League. Higher average league attendance and a semi-final place in the Capital One Cup also contributed.

 

Reduction in operating expenses was driven by rationalisation of the playing squad with amortisation of player’s registrations down £3.1 million and all other expenses down by the same amount.

 

Exceptional charges increased by £2.4million to £8.3 million and included the accelerated amortisation of certain players’ registrations and their employment costs. The accounts now more accurately reflect the value of the squad utilised by the manager.

 

As the squad was being rebuilt, there was no repeat of 2011-12’s record-breaking profit on disposal of player’s registrations (£0.3m loss in 2012-13 as opposed to £26.9m profit in 2011-12).

 

There was also no repeat of the one-off impact in 2011-12 of the waiver of accumulated interest of £20.3m by the owner on loans made to the Club. The group continues to benefit from this largesse to the tune of £6.1 million annually.

 

Although the operating loss fell by £9.5m, the combined effect of the above was to increase the loss after tax for the financial year by £34.1m to £51.8m. This was primarily due to non-recurrence of the high profit on player disposals in 2011-12 (£27.2 m) and waiver of interest (£20.3m).

 

link

 

Who needs porn? Get the tissues, I'm knocking a slow one out over these beautiful figures.

[villarule123]

[Brumstopdogs]

Really need to see the full accounts to understand what is really happening.

 

On the face of it good news turnover has gone up and will continue to should we stay in the premier league. On the costs side wages are seemingly under control.

 

In terrms of the operating loss it is guess work until there is a proper analysis as to how it has arose.

[suttonpaul]

No I haven't been drinking I said the only way I can see us making losses like this is if a player is included as an asset on the accounts so you buy Bent for 18m and sell him for nothing therefore it shows as minus 18m on an accounts book.

 

Hopefully that clears that up as if you think about it how did we spend 90 on wages/transfers etc last year? It's the only thing that makes sense to me before seeing the accounts.

[NoelVilla]

No I haven't been drinking I said the only way I can see us making losses like this is if a player is included as an asset on the accounts so you buy Bent for 18m and sell him for nothing therefore it shows as minus 18m on an accounts book.

 

Hopefully that clears that up as if you think about it how did we spend 90 on wages/transfers etc last year? It's the only thing that makes sense to me before seeing the accounts.

Are you sure that you responds to what you have written?

[snowychap]

No I haven't been drinking I said the only way I can see us making losses like this is if a player is included as an asset on the accounts so you buy Bent for 18m and sell him for nothing therefore it shows as minus 18m on an accounts book.

 

Hopefully that clears that up as if you think about it how did we spend 90 on wages/transfers etc last year? It's the only thing that makes sense to me before seeing the accounts.

That doesn't make sense to anyone - or at least it shouldn't.

[suttonpaul]

I really don't know what you don't understand? You realise a player can be considered an asset, and therefore when sold for nothing be it Ireland/Dunne whoever it can therefore be considered a loss on accounts as in the original transfer fee paid.

Edited February 28, 2014 by suttonpaul

[markavfc40]

I really don't know what you don't understand? You realise a player can be considered an asset, and therefore when sold for nothing be it Ireland/Dunne whoever it can therefore be considered a loss on accounts as in the original transfer fee paid.

 

So what your saying is that we bought say Cuellar in 2008 for 7 million. That 7 million showed in the 2008/9 accounts. Then when his contract expired in 2012 and he left for nothing that 7 million we paid for him showed again in the 2012/13 accounts as another loss. Effectively meaning he cost us 14 million.

You need to think about what your saying as it makes no sense at all.