kidlewis Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 The only thing that interests me with these figures is the wage bill. Obviously it will be down again but not sure how far. As we said at the time 85% wages/turnover in the MON era was way way too high and ultimately unsustainable. I believe at the same time Spurs were operating at about 70% and they started finishing higher than us so it can be done. The crux of course is we strip wages, the squad becomes worse, we start losing more games, losing high attendances and finishing lower in the league and playing fewer cup games so revenue streams are reduced. One of the problems is we are not a London side. Even cuddly lovable West Ham now have a bigger turnover than us. And they are getting a free 55,000 stadium in 2 years. Just to think less than 20 years ago they had a 25,000 stadium, but east London is now booming. Spurs have a bigger turnover than Newcastle even though St James' Park is 16,000 seats bigger than White Hart Lane. This is because they can charge loads more for ordinary tickets and hospitality. Of course when they rebuild WHL, they will be even further ahead of us and the likes of Newcastle, Sunderland and Everton. The only opportunity Fox should look at this that Birmingham is a vibrant city with I think the youngest population in Europe. We have to somehow tap into this next generation of potential support. Selling more shirts in Dublin than Birmingham speaks volumes. Being fan friendly for all different background and cultures and actually having a watchable side may be a start. He has to have some ideas out of the box or Villa at best will be forever just making up the numbers watching other teams overtake us both on and off the pitch. Yeah that's a good point, Spurs have plenty of coporate clients paying money for boxes at WHL and West Ham will get an increased demand when they go to Olympic stadium. One thing I've always thought....Brum is home to two major universities (and a third). Do we do enough to attract fans there as obviously in the annual September influx they'll be plenty of people who like football arriving to live in Birmingham half of the year. They won't all go back to watch their teams at weekends and I reckon you'd get a decent demand if you had tickets in the 15-20 quid bracket. That could be one way of attracting new fans perhaps? I work at one of said Universities, and the resounding answer is no, Villa dont do anywhere near enough. The number of overseas students is into the thousands, we should absolutely be tapping into this resource. I also used to work at a College in Hall Green, (South Birmingham). A very large percentage of ethnic origin students, and again, zero effort by Villa to tap into the local communities. Do they not communicate offers bespoke to universities? Coventry Blaze email round a set number of seats on a FCFS basis and they are literally half price. They send it out to large HQ businesses and schools in the Coventry Centre area. It helps I think get those extra few seats sold. With AVFC if it's largely a "new untapped" audience, they know the best they will get for Swansea (e.g.) is 35k, so why not offer 5k seats at half price to that new audience and monitor the uptake percentage? Yes it potentially undermines some ST prices for the odd game, but that's where I was saying offer ancillary offers which many fans would use outside football. Like O2 have done with moments, they get rid of lots of offers and deals and offer great unique content and access to some high value and desirable things. For example what about villa fans get free access to priority tickets at local venues like the NIA, NEC etc? so when someone decent does play that venue and you happen to have a missus who loves Foo Fighters or kids who love One Direction, you'r guaranteed some decent tickets. They need to think wider about this as a business, it's not just about retaining people to watch football, the current pitch activity isn't doing that, so make ST more valuable and also show them that based on what they used. "oh you bought a fiat 500 on the villa deal last year, that saved you £1,400". "you also saved £140 on restaurants this year" okay well that's worth being a member on it's own. Yes it's not how everyone thinks, but er.... look at Tesco Clubcard, resoundingly not the cheapest supermarket, even in their boom, but people went there because they could double up on clubcard points and get money off Pizza Express. As for universities, they should have a special mailing list and custom templates for each one (not hard to do) and send our bespoke offers and even offer that if the uni "pushes tickets and sells I don't know 500 tickets" free coach service from the Student Union (or whatever). win win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisagg75 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 hopefully these kind of things are what tom fox will be rectifying,he seems to have the right ideas.he has a hell of a job to do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 That's the commercial side sorted then. We've just paid Bacuna's wages for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Yet even with higher turnover we can't offer wages other mid table teams can. Is that still true? I'd imagine Delph just got himself a chunky increase. I think this next set of books will be crucial in determining our ability to do what you assume we can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2015 Looks like the new accounts are out. Turnover up to £116.9m and out losses massively reduced from £50.9m the year before to just £3.9m last year. I will happily admit, I'm not great at reading accounts, but I'd love to have the chance to confuse myself reading through them if anyone has a copy or a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Looks like the new accounts are out. Turnover up to £116.9m and out losses massively reduced from £50.9m the year before to just £3.9m last year. I will happily admit, I'm not great at reading accounts, but I'd love to have the chance to confuse myself reading through them if anyone has a copy or a link. Fantastic news if true. A loss of £3.9m in premier league terms is classed as "balanced" I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2015 This £90.1m worth of debt converted into share capital, is that Randy writing that debt off? I suspect it is, for him it means he's just moving his own money around I guess, but for us, that's a heck of a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Depending on how we account for the losses we're not on firm fitting for the PLs ffp loss allowances here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2015 Here on the OS Aston Villa announces an improvement of £47.9m on losses after tax for the year ended May 31, 2014, down to £3.9m from £51.8m for the previous year. The reduction was due in part to a £33.2m increase in turnover to £116.9m and a £12.9m reduction in operating expenses to £121.7m, which resulted in an operating loss of £4.8m compared to £50.9m for the previous year. The increase in turnover was driven largely by new Barclays Premier League broadcasting agreements but was also aided by growth in the club's commercial and sponsorship revenues. The accounts also reflect the December 2013 conversion of £90.1m of loan notes into called up share capital. The consolidated balance sheet at May 31, 2014 shows net assets of £2.1m compared to net liabilities of £84.2m at May 31, 2013. Robin Russell, chief financial officer, said: "We are very pleased to be able to report improved results after a period of heavy financial losses. "By controlling costs we have been able to take advantage of the new Premier League broadcasting deal to bring the club closer to self-sufficiency. "Compliance with Financial Fair Play continues to be a key component of our planning and we remain focused on growing the club in a responsible and sustainable way." I wonder what this means for the club? We've doing better financially than a lot of our competitors by the look of things, but do we use the opportunity to go back into debt and improve the team, or continue as we are and place that big income figure at risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The way I understand it that is Randy prepping for a sale. Taking the debt out of the club to make it more attractive and then trying to recoup as much of that through the raw sale price as he can. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2015 Depending on how we account for the losses we're not on firm fitting for the PLs ffp loss allowances here... How do you mean? The three year thing? The way I understand it that is Randy prepping for a sale. Taking the debt out of the club to make it more attractive and then trying to recoup as much of that through the raw sale price as he can. Me too I would think. I'm not sure how business's are priced up, but I can't see him getting a price that would cover that. I guess it's about cutting losses as far as is possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Depending on how we account for the losses we're not on firm fitting for the PLs ffp loss allowances here... How do you mean? The three year thing? yeah, you're allowed losses of 105m over the first 3 seasons. Though looking at the implementation dates, we're actually fine. First year was 2013/14 for losses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2015 Depending on how we account for the losses we're not on firm fitting for the PLs ffp loss allowances here... How do you mean? The three year thing? yeah, you're allowed losses of 105m over the first 3 seasons. Though looking at the implementation dates, we're actually fine. First year was 2013/14 for losses Good, so we can spend £101m in the next two seasons then. (I wish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Depending on how we account for the losses we're not on firm fitting for the PLs ffp loss allowances here... How do you mean? The three year thing? yeah, you're allowed losses of 105m over the first 3 seasons. Though looking at the implementation dates, we're actually fine. First year was 2013/14 for losses How about post 3 years? In theory we could lose £50m next year and still be compliant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Depending on how we account for the losses we're not on firm fitting for the PLs ffp loss allowances here... How do you mean? The three year thing? yeah, you're allowed losses of 105m over the first 3 seasons. Though looking at the implementation dates, we're actually fine. First year was 2013/14 for losses How about post 3 years? In theory we could lose £50m next year and still be compliant? My understanding of it is that the first penalties will come at the end of the initial 3 year period, where you have to have lost less than 105m total. After that, it'll be rolling 3 years. So we could lose 50m a year next year and the following year and we're fine, but the year after that we'd only be allowed a maximum of a 5m loss. That loss is only allowable, too, if the owner puts the money in by way of a non-loan cash injection. If they don't, the allowable figures are much lower - I think around 5m a season. I actually thought I had all this figured out, then found out today I didn't, so I could be wrong on several counts with this post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Isn't all the FFP malarky only relevant if we qualify for Europe? Which, unless we get relegated and the Anglo Italia Cup is reinstated, is never going to happen. (Villa v Bari 2016 would be class!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Isn't all the FFP malarky only relevant if we qualify for Europe? Which, unless we get relegated and the Anglo Italia Cup is reinstated, is never going to happen. (Villa v Bari 2016 would be class!) No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 24, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Well, i guess a congratulations needs to be given to Randy. This has been his sole ambition and number one priority over the past 3 or 4 years so.... looks like he's finally achieved it. Edited February 24, 2015 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Isn't all the FFP malarky only relevant if we qualify for Europe? Which, unless we get relegated and the Anglo Italia Cup is reinstated, is never going to happen. (Villa v Bari 2016 would be class!) UEFA FFP only applies to europe. Premier League FFP applies to the Premier League. Football League FFP applies to the Championship through to League 2. They're all different Well, i guess a congratulations needs to be given to Randy. This has been his sole ambition and number one priority over the past 3 or 4 years so.... looks like he's finally achieved it. Be a right pisser if we go down all the same - but if we stay up, it's a remarkable job well done, even if the starting conditions were his own doing Edited February 24, 2015 by P3te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted February 25, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 25, 2015 So off the back of that, do you think they said to Sherwood, "keep us up and you get £40m to spend in the summer" ? If we're still in the prem when the new TV deal kicks in we'll be turning a healthy profit based on these figures, and allowing for inevitable wage inflation to stay competitive we'd still be good for breaking even with a much stronger squad. Shame we look doomed ay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts