Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tony

AVFC accounts 2018

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, El-Reacho said:

AC Milan seemed to build a case (for European FFP) that because they changed ownership they were able to reset their three season's losses to begin from when the new owners took control. Maybe we're going down the same route. Purslow and the new owners will know exactly what they can and can't do regarding FFP over the next few seasons and wouldn't have bothered buying us if we were going to be that hamstrung in the coming seasons. I reckon we'll see lots more high profile loans like El-Ghazi.

This approach ^^ of using the ownership change or a forced sales of a key player I.e. Grealish seem to be the only logical way to justify why we're not going to fail FFP, in my opinion.

Purslow has indicated previously that the change of ownership effectively refinanced the club and so we start with a clean sheet. Equally, Smith was talking about Jack's long-term contract yesterday and building him up as the captain for the year's ahead.

It is difficult to trust new owners given our Randy and Dr X experiences but it looks like that's what we're having to do I.e, take Purslow at his word that we're fine and we should know more come the summer based on the type of signings we make.

It's a bit worrying but equally we do seem to have owner's who are more on the ball these days. 

Edited by Darth Villa
Typo fix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I trust 2 self made billionaires to do what is right and the best for AVFC.  If they are not worried, I am not worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve just read that Man City are intending to bring in 4 players in the summer at a cost of £350 million. That’s around £90 million each and I would imagine that between them, players of that value, would add another £1 million a week to the wage bill. There is no way that Man City are legitimately earning that sort of money through football, they are driving a coach and horses through ffp, as are plenty of others. Chelsea have plans to spend £200 million this summer, despite starting a transfer ban, so obviously their lawyers are confident of over turning the ban. 

If our owners and the board are as savy as we all hope they are, then I’d assume that their lawyers have all been to the same law school as those at Man City and Chelsea etc and we will therefore be taking a similar approach. Throw in a few creative and highly paid accountants and you’d be amazed how healthy our finances look compared with the accounts from Xia’s band of bean counters with their Casios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveAV1 said:

 There is no way that Man City are legitimately earning that sort of money through football.

They've just signed a £650m kit deal with Puma. 

Our situation remains a mystery to me - how we can pass FFP is baffling. The club seem completely relaxed and calm about it, but the numbers make no sense. I guess we'll see.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

the numbers make no sense

They lack context, but (to me) they don't make no sense.

It looks like the outgoings of the club were 32 million more than the income, but FFP isn't a measure of that. Because of things excluded (youth stuff, infrastructure stuff, staff pay-offs etc.) the FFP figures will be less bad than the 32 mill. and may squeak inside the line. for the 2018/17/16 limit

I'm more concerned about this season's figures, which we'll see next March, and which will be against a reduced allowance for 2019/18/17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

They've just signed a £650m kit deal with Puma. 

Our situation remains a mystery to me - how we can pass FFP is baffling. The club seem completely relaxed and calm about it, but the numbers make no sense. I guess we'll see.

Yes I saw that and I think we are looking at doing something similar, but obviously not as big. They got their wrists slapped a few years ago over a sponsorship deal that was deemed to be over valued, however it all got swept under the carpet and that, I think, is what we are attempting to do. 

Swaris is in a strong position at Adidas and I’m sure both him and Edens have a vast wealth of contacts that can “help” us along the way.

As others have said, it would be strange if two powerful, wealthy and ambitious businessmen, who already have big interests in sport, bought a high profile football club to leave it languishing outside the top division. Making money is something they’ve already achieved. Making Aston Villa, the founders of the first and best league in the world, great again, now there’s an achievement worthy of anyone’s CV. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blandy said:

They lack context, but (to me) they don't make no sense.

It looks like the outgoings of the club were 32 million more than the income, but FFP isn't a measure of that. Because of things excluded (youth stuff, infrastructure stuff, staff pay-offs etc.) the FFP figures will be less bad than the 32 mill. and may squeak inside the line. for the 2018/17/16 limit

I'm more concerned about this season's figures, which we'll see next March, and which will be against a reduced allowance for 2019/18/17.

But these figures don't include player trading or salaries apparently, so this losses will be even larger.

Regardless, where I say the figures make no sense, I mean in context with what the club are saying, we have ongoing, growing losses which at least to me would appear to be leading us well outside the limitations off FFP,  the club are talking about us as if we're in profit. It's odd.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

But these figures don't include player trading or salaries apparently, so this losses will be even larger.

Regardless, where I say the figures make no sense, I mean in context with what the club are saying, we have ongoing, growing losses which at least to me would appear to be leading us well outside the limitations off FFP,  the club are talking about us as if we're in profit. It's odd.

I think they do contain player trading and salaries. It's just that in these (as opposed to recon) accounts, they're not broken down. The alternative would be a huge amount of money taken out of the club (which wouldn't be an FFP matter as it would be nothing to do with the football side of things). There's no sign we can see that this is the case. But like you, I'm only going on what I can see, and am not an accountant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a bit of a read through The Swiss Rambles last bit on Villa and it seems what's current'y keeping us out of the trap is a writing off of the value of Villa Park to the tune of about £45m - apparently we can use this to write off losses as it's spending on infrastructure. That sounds like accountancy trickery at its finest, but the suggestion was that whilst it might get us through this year, but that trouble isn't far away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

...it might get us through this year, but that trouble isn't far away

Yes, if by this year, you mean the one for which the accounts have just been released. That's my feeling to - I'm more worried about this current financial year - due to be reported next March. I think the "loss" on the ground you mention was due to the book value in the accounts being much more than "it" was actually sold for when the Xia takeover happened - so there was a big srop in the paper value of those assets - excluded from FFP, though, as it was not "spending" on football, just fluctuation in the value as recorded, of the ground etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes, if by this year, you mean the one for which the accounts have just been released. That's my feeling to - I'm more worried about this current financial year - due to be reported next March. I think the "loss" on the ground you mention was due to the book value in the accounts being much more than "it" was actually sold for when the Xia takeover happened - so there was a big srop in the paper value of those assets - excluded from FFP, though, as it was not "spending" on football, just fluctuation in the value as recorded, of the ground etc.

I don’t like the sound of any of this.

As you say you’re not an accountant, but you seem to have an understanding of this. If you had to guess, why do you think Purslow appears to be calm and collected about this when the subject is brought up?

Something up his sleeve, or just a good poker face? Or something in between?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blandy said:

I think they do contain player trading and salaries.

No, they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if we were able to remove £45m by revaluing the ground, we might be able to take out another chunk by revaluing the training ground following the work on HS2. It'll be interesting to see if there's anything in that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything about the theme park in those accounts?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

I don’t like the sound of any of this.

As you say you’re not an accountant, but you seem to have an understanding of this. If you had to guess, why do you think Purslow appears to be calm and collected about this when the subject is brought up?

Something up his sleeve, or just a good poker face? Or something in between?

HS2 is the only thing I can think of that might help us - a windfall of multi millions for the land that's being taken from us. But in the FFP thread, I've explained my doubts some months ago about the level of apparent confidence.

I am not an expert, I just try to make sense of it by reading the FFP rules and listening when experts do post on here or elsewhere.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blandy said:

 I just try to make sense of it by reading the FFP rules 

I think you need to get out more 😎

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, they don't.

Why do you say that so assertively, Snowy? 

My perception is that AVFC accounts are the legally filed accounts of the Football Club and that it wouldn't be permissible under FRS 102 to omit or exclude such significant outgoings from the legally filed accounts. You cannot ignore the major part of your expenditure or income when filing accounts. The auditors wouldn't sign them off either. The wages and net transfer and loan fees will surely be in the bundle of "operating expenses".

Furthermore, how on earth would the football club incur operating expenses on its activities of 97 million without player wages etc. being part of that?

I am not a bean counter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm wondering if we were able to remove £45m by revaluing the ground, we might be able to take out another chunk by revaluing the training ground following the work on HS2. It'll be interesting to see if there's anything in that.

The compo we get is permissible to be included in FFP calls. The spend we do to fettle the site post losing the land is not part of FFP, so that's a bonus. Revaluation of the site is neither here not there for FFP (as we saw when it went down. If it goes up in value it's neither income nor outgoings, just a number on paper, until or unless it is sold or leased or generates income.

I am not...etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blandy said:

If it goes up in value it's neither income nor outgoings, just a number on paper, until or unless it is sold or leased or generates income.

Ah, okay - so the revaluation of the ground only took effect when it was sold.

So for the ground, we had a thing worth a hundred million and now it's worth fifty-five million - those are losses that aren't related to football, so we can write off forty-five million worth of football losses to offset that.

But for Bodymoor, we had a thing worth x million, we lost y million on it's value, we were compensated z million - and the z million can be added to our incomes for the purposes of FFP?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, blandy said:

HS2 is the only thing I can think of that might help us - a windfall of multi millions for the land that's being taken from us. But in the FFP thread, I've explained my doubts some months ago about the level of apparent confidence.

I am not an expert, I just try to make sense of it by reading the FFP rules and listening when experts do post on here or elsewhere.

We did have a meeting regarding our FFP. I wonder if there may be something in us having new owners like AC Milan. Maybe there may be some slack given Xia despite passing the fit and proper persons test wasn't quite what he seemed. 

H2S plus a sale of Grealish or others coupled with a lot of high earners may be the way forward. 

Could some deal have already been cut to take in to account the new owners first season off the back of Xia's shennanigans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...
Â