AVFC accounts 2018

[briny_ear]

11 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Lansbury and Bolasie wages combined was way north of 100k a week. Bolasie got about 2 million for doing nothing here. Bjarnason, Neil Taylor arent playing for peanuts either

So are you saying all RDM’s signings played for peanuts? I thought it was revealed that McCormack was on £2.3m a year + £1m bonus if we got promoted even if he didn’t play any matches.

Tight negotiating there from our financial saviour di Matteo!

Edited March 6, 2019 by briny_ear

[briny_ear]

4 minutes ago, Zatman said:

As you can see I never said that anywhere but I am sure that wont suit your agenda

I don’t have an “agenda”. 

Apart from trying to correct people when they distort or conceal facts to suit their own argument. It is foolish and wrong to pretend that RDM didn’t have a key part in massively wasting our resources.

Edited March 6, 2019 by briny_ear

[Mark Albrighton]

RDM definitely takes some of the blame in my opinion. 

He gets credit for Kodjia, Chester, Adomah. Looking back it’s possible we overpaid, but I can more or less let it slide on these three.

He gets pelters for McCormack, Tshibola, Gollini. Over £20m pissed up the wall there.

Not happy with the huge wages (I suspect) Jedinak is on either. I won’t crucify him for De Laet because of his injury. Elphick, on the fence with that one.

Wherever you want to assign blame between RDM/Bruce/Wyness....top of the shit list is phoney tony.

[DCJonah]

29 minutes ago, Stuartc445 said:

I'm not quite sure why you mention RDMs 11 games in charge as that doesn't match what i said.  I said it's strange you brought up Bruce as the cause of the financial problems when between Bruce and RDM, RDM was the one that spent more,  RDM brought McCormack for £12.87 million, Tshibola £5.31 Million and Gollini £4.50 Million who all flopped that's £22.68 million wasted on players that flopped and that isn't including wages.  Whereas the only flop Bruce had was Hogan who cost around £9..45.  So I think you'll find RDM was far more wasteful than Bruce

Well you're changing the argument. No one started talking about which players flopped and which didn't. The point was, we failed to go up and we no longer have a financial advantage over other teams. We wasted that advantage with Bruce, who through way more transfer windows than RDM failed to build anything, failed to get promoted and has left nothing really. How many bruce signings will play a significant part next season?

[Mark Albrighton]

59 minutes ago, Stuartc445 said:

I'm not quite sure why you mention RDMs 11 games in charge as that doesn't match what i said.  I said it's strange you brought up Bruce as the cause of the financial problems when between Bruce and RDM, RDM was the one that spent more,  RDM brought McCormack for £12.87 million, Tshibola £5.31 Million and Gollini £4.50 Million who all flopped that's £22.68 million wasted on players that flopped and that isn't including wages.  Whereas the only flop Bruce had was Hogan who cost around £9..45.  So I think you'll find RDM was far more wasteful than Bruce

Not wanting to make this another Bruce thread (but it feels like it’s going that way)....

Don’t disagree with your waste of money attributed to RDM. But along with Hogan, I’d add the money paid for Lansbury (again his injuries aren’t Bruce’s fault but did he have a record of being crocked?), Bree - I don’t mind Bree but I just don’t understand the thinking with him, barely playing him, not loaning him out..... Like wise Bedeau. Those three are another £6m-7m in transfers gone. Nyland, another million or so there. Think people are still unsure about Thor too.

Throw in whatever Neil Taylor was valued at...a few million as part of the deal with Ayew maybe? 

All that creeps up to the £20m mark on signings where it’s probably fair to say the money could have been better spent elsewhere. 

RDM’s poor signings were fairly disastrous. Bruce’s poor signings have been less eye catchingly bad, but have also had a negative impact - as DCJ asks, how many of those seven players will be featuring for us next season?

Plenty of blame to go around in my book. But like I say, mostly to Xia.

[markavfc40]

I don't really get this blaming managers for the club living way beyond its means. They have no control over the purse strings. They will be given a budget and 99 out of 100 managers will spend it. Some will also go cap in hand, either directly or apply pressure via the media, for more.

In Xia we had a reckless charlatan who gambled the very existence of our football club on gaining promotion. He inherited the likes of Gabby, Richards and Hutton (at that time) on big contracts. He then happily allowed Di Matteo to add the likes of McCormack, Jedinak, Kodjia, Chester, Adomah all I'd imagine on 30k-50k a week. Then with rapidly dwindling income happily sanctioned Bruce signing the likes of Whelan, Lansbury, Snodgrass, Terry on big wages for this level. 

I do get the argument that with the budgets given to our managers we should have achieved more. When some say Bruce had a 73 mill wage bill though and couldn't get us promoted that implies he signed all those players who made up that wage bill when in fact of those on the wage bill last season many of the highest earners in Gabby, Richards, McCormack, Jedinak, Kodjia, Adomah, Chester, Hutton (on big wages at that time) none signed those contracts when Bruce was manager.

The bottom line is that managers will always come and go and most with the pressure of short term goals and need for instant success, as has been the case at Villa for the last three years, will spend whatever money they are given. It is for the owners to ensure though that whatever money they are given the club can sustain that expenditure or that they as owners can cover it. In that regard Tony Xia failed big time and nearly lost us our club.

Edited March 6, 2019 by markavfc40

[DCJonah]

36 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't really get this blaming managers for the club living way beyond its means. They have no control over the purse strings. They will be given a budget and 99 out of 100 managers will spend it. Some will also go cap in hand, either directly or apply pressure via the media, for more.

In Xia we had a reckless charlatan who gambled the very existence of our football club on gaining promotion. He inherited the likes of Gabby, Richards and Hutton (at that time) on big contracts. He then happily allowed Di Matteo to add the likes of McCormack, Jedinak, Kodjia, Chester, Adomah all I'd imagine on 30k-50k a week. Then with rapidly dwindling income happily sanctioned Bruce signing the likes of Whelan, Lansbury, Snodgrass, Terry on big wages for this level. 

I do get the argument that with the budgets given to our managers we should have achieved more. When some say Bruce had a 73 mill wage bill though and couldn't get us promoted that implies he signed all those players who made up that wage bill when in fact of those on the wage bill last season many of the highest earners in Gabby, Richards, McCormack, Jedinak, Kodjia, Adomah, Chester, Hutton (on big wages at that time) none signed those contracts when Bruce was manager.

The bottom line is that managers will always come and go and most with the pressure of short term goals and need for instant success, as has been the case at Villa for the last three years, will spend whatever money they are given. It is for the owners to ensure though that whatever money they are given the club can sustain that expenditure or that they as owners can cover it. In that regard Tony Xia failed big time and nearly lost us our club.

I don't blame him for spending money. 

I do blame him for failing to get us up and throwing that money away on expensive loans or aging players. 

[thabucks]

RDM 11 game tenure for me lets him off the hook somewhat in regards to his now known failed expensive flops .... who knows what would of happened/where would be if wyness  hadn’t got into xia’s Ear so early which was way too early to judge him on  in my eyes to get his mate Bruce on board .... maybe McCormack’s name would be chanted from the holte ... 

Edited March 6, 2019 by thabucks

[MrDuck]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't really get this blaming managers for the club living way beyond its means. They have no control over the purse strings. They will be given a budget and 99 out of 100 managers will spend it. Some will also go cap in hand, either directly or apply pressure via the media, for more.

 

This, entirely 100% this.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, briny_ear said:

Tight negotiating there from our financial saviour di Matteo!

 

10 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I ..try... to correct people when they distort ....facts to suit their own argument.

I think you may have fallen from your self proclaimed standards there, briny. I very doubt di Matteo negotiated the wages or fee for McCormack. The same applies to all signings and managers - agents, owners, CEOs, financial officers tend to negotiate the fees and wages, not coaches and managers. So Bruce, RDM are not to blame for costs. Using resources (players) badly however...

[Mark Albrighton]

The thing for me is even if a manager isn’t part of the negotiations they must have at least an idea of the numbers that are going to be involved when buying a player.

As an extreme example (and I’m using this as it was probably our most high profile signing) Steve Bruce must have realised that in order to sign John Terry, we would have to pay an extremely high championship wage for him. WE as fans knew that would likely be the case, we knew he wouldn’t come cheap. I don’t see how people can say “oh well wages, it’s not the manager’s responsibility”. When he identified JT as a player he wanted, how much did he expect we would have to pay JT to sign for us? 

I can’t believe the thought didn’t enter his head.

[Tony]

9 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't really get this blaming managers for the club living way beyond its means. They have no control over the purse strings.

I think people get that. But I believe Bruce went on record / indirectly got it into the press that in fact he’d reduced the wage bill and had to work on a tighter budget. So rightly he’ll be judged on his comments in relation to the accounts. Here’s a snipet for you: 

Yet the mistakes of the past mean Bruce has been forced to work within a tight financial framework since replacing Roberto Di Matteo as boss in October 2016.

Villa have spent just £2.5million in transfer fees during the last two windows, while a number of players have been moved off the books.

“I understand the situation. It’s what we have all inherited,” said Bruce.

“Clearing up and putting the house in order is part of my job.

“I don’t get involved as much as I used to

“But certainly it’s part of my job because I manage the club and I would try to manage the club how I would manage myself in terms of finances.

link 

[tomav84]

51 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

The thing for me is even if a manager isn’t part of the negotiations they must have at least an idea of the numbers that are going to be involved when buying a player.

As an extreme example (and I’m using this as it was probably our most high profile signing) Steve Bruce must have realised that in order to sign John Terry, we would have to pay an extremely high championship wage for him. WE as fans knew that would likely be the case, we knew he wouldn’t come cheap. I don’t see how people can say “oh well wages, it’s not the manager’s responsibility”. When he identified JT as a player he wanted, how much did he expect we would have to pay JT to sign for us? 

I can’t believe the thought didn’t enter his head.

they do, but they cannot be blamed for the transfer being ratified. the chief exec, their boss, has the final say. so for me, wyness gets the blame all day long. bruce/RDM would have been given a rough transfer/wage budget and will know that these players fall within that. so when bruce and JT were playing golf together in Portugal, figures probably were discussed, but bruce knew that it was within budget...the budget set by Wyness. if a manager is given a budget to spend then he'll spend it...i dont get why people have a problem with that? they're not going to think "ooh maybe the club can't afford this" because they're not accountants; they're football managers...they have to just do their job and trust that their bosses have covered things from a financial side.

[Dave-R]

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

Haha I have an agenda? From the man so desperate to defend Bruce, he can't even comprehend the point being made. 

Bruce wasted our financial advantage by failing to get promoted, and with that failing to leave anything that could really be built on. Smith is having to completely rebuild the defence and will have to do the same to other areas thanks to Bruce wasting fortunes on older players and expensive loans. 

 

Sometimes things happen for a reason, because of bruce wasting resources and failing to get us promoted led us to better ownership and getting rid of xia. 

I don't think xia would of been able to do much in the premier, he had less than he led everyone to believe he had.

 

[briny_ear]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

 

I think you may have fallen from your self proclaimed standards there, briny. I very doubt di Matteo negotiated the wages or fee for McCormack. The same applies to all signings and managers - agents, owners, CEOs, financial officers tend to negotiate the fees and wages, not coaches and managers. So Bruce, RDM are not to blame for costs. Using resources (players) badly however...

Yes, sorry, there was a (clearly failed) attempt at light-hearted irony in my first comment. Should have known better. 

I am in fact much more in agreement with the points you make here and those in Mark’s long post above.

I used to make similar points when people banged on about MON’s signings being on high wages. He didn’t sign the cheques but he did fail to get us above 6th... (although in retrospect that was a golden era).

[Mark Albrighton]

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

they do, but they cannot be blamed for the transfer being ratified. the chief exec, their boss, has the final say. so for me, wyness gets the blame all day long. bruce/RDM would have been given a rough transfer/wage budget and will know that these players fall within that. so when bruce and JT were playing golf together in Portugal, figures probably were discussed, but bruce knew that it was within budget...the budget set by Wyness. if a manager is given a budget to spend then he'll spend it...i dont get why people have a problem with that? they're not going to think "ooh maybe the club can't afford this" because they're not accountants; they're football managers...they have to just do their job and trust that their bosses have covered things from a financial side.

I don’t have a problem with a manager spending the budget, but I expect them to be have some accountability in their dealings. Not as much as the people who sign off on the deal, but their share.

Managers receive credit for the successful signings, I think they should receive equal criticism for signings that don’t work out.

Edit - I should clarify that I don’t consider Terry to have been a poor signing. I’m using Terry as an example to challenge this idea that a manager is oblivious to what a player will be earning and therefore is absolved of all criticism on that front. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Shropshire Lad

[snowychap]

On 06/03/2019 at 07:31, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

The original tweet you quoted doesn't seem to be there so this is his one on the staff costs.

The breakdown in figures from the accounts is as follows:

From the group accounts:

Remuneration                    2018               2017

                                         £'000             £'000

Wages and salaries           65,122             53,490

Social security costs          7,501               7,479

Other pension costs              487                 504

Total                                 73,110              61,473

[tomav84]

56 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

I don’t have a problem with a manager spending the budget, but I expect them to be have some accountability in their dealings. Not as much as the people who sign off on the deal, but their share.

Managers receive credit for the successful signings, I think they should receive equal criticism for signings that don’t work out.

Edit - I should clarify that I don’t consider Terry to have been a poor signing. I’m using Terry as an example to challenge this idea that a manager is oblivious to what a player will be earning and therefore is absolved of all criticism on that front. 

absolutely, but this is the AVFC accounts thread, and people are blaming, either largely or partly, RDM and Bruce for our financial predicaments...my point is that it's not their fault. managers absolutely should be praised/criticised as appropriate for the quality of the players that they sign, but that's a different conversation for a different thread

[VillaChris]

On 06/03/2019 at 10:21, El-Reacho said:

“board actively seeking actions to avoid future breaches”

Does this mean that we have actually breached FFP rules?

It was reported we were under a transfer embargo for a few weeks over the summer when the fall out started so imagine it would relate to that.

[blandy]

21 hours ago, Shropshire Lad said:

The thing for me is even if a manager isn’t part of the negotiations they must have at least an idea of the numbers that are going to be involved when buying a player.

As an extreme example (and I’m using this as it was probably our most high profile signing) Steve Bruce must have realised that in order to sign John Terry, we would have to pay an extremely high championship wage for him. WE as fans knew that would likely be the case, we knew he wouldn’t come cheap. I don’t see how people can say “oh well wages, it’s not the manager’s responsibility”. When he identified JT as a player he wanted, how much did he expect we would have to pay JT to sign for us? 

I can’t believe the thought didn’t enter his head.

Absolutely right. In that case he used the resources well. But the club gave him a budget, he spent it. It was his policy to go with high wage loans etc v youth, or v lower wage, cheap fee signings to be developed. In football terms it didn’t work, ultimately. Accounting wise, I guess it nearly drove the club bankrupt, but because the wages are now off the books, at least that punishing burden is gone....except of course, he did it again this season, when he was here. Very pleased he’s now ex manager, and at least Bolassie is off the wages.