OutByEaster? Posted March 29, 2022 Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2022 1 minute ago, Czarnikjak said: If I recall our total losses due to covid were accounted as less than £100m Good point. Although I seem to recall that was about the limit of what could be claimed. Everton haven't claimed extraordinary amounts in the first two years of this three year FFP period in so far as I'm aware, surely they can't be attempting to write off more than £100m in Covid losses in a single year? It's ridiculous - by rights they should be looking at a points penalty - if I'm in charge of any of the other teams in the relegation race this season, I'm all over this. If they get away with it, then if I'm running any club, I'm writing off losses in my next accounting period against just about whatever I like. How you can go from losses of £372m to writing up a loss of less than £105m is just ridiculous. They've essentially lost £175m more than us over three years and are claiming to be within the rules - Wolves have lost around £40m in total over that period - £330m less than Everton - and yet we're all seemingly playing by the same rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: Good point. Although I seem to recall that was about the limit of what could be claimed. Everton haven't claimed extraordinary amounts in the first two years of this three year FFP period in so far as I'm aware, surely they can't be attempting to write off more than £100m in Covid losses in a single year? It's ridiculous - by rights they should be looking at a points penalty - if I'm in charge of any of the other teams in the relegation race this season, I'm all over this. If they get away with it, then if I'm running any club, I'm writing off losses in my next accounting period against just about whatever I like. How you can go from losses of £372m to writing up a loss of less than £105m is just ridiculous. They've essentially lost £175m more than us over three years and are claiming to be within the rules - Wolves have lost around £40m in total over that period - £330m less than Everton - and yet we're all seemingly playing by the same rules. do you think i would be right in thinking, that when Ancelotti joined, they signed james Rodriguez as well as many others, it feels like they fully intended to bet all their chips on them getting top 4 or something? (and it failed?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 2 hours ago, MaVilla said: do you think i would be right in thinking, that when Ancelotti joined, they signed james Rodriguez as well as many others, it feels like they fully intended to bet all their chips on them getting top 4 or something? (and it failed?) Has been a long time coming, way before Ancelotti came in. Probably the worst ran team in the league and that is a tough challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 21 minutes ago, Zatman said: Has been a long time coming, way before Ancelotti came in. Probably the worst ran team in the league and that is a tough challenge Not probably, definitely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 On 24/03/2022 at 21:08, Czarnikjak said: So normally if you sign a player for £40m on 4 year contract, for accounting purposes you amortise this purchase evenly, £10m each year for 4 years (this goes down as a cost for FFP purposes). I think we are front loading the amortisation (ie £15m in year one, and thus less in coming years). This is to maximise our FFP allowed losses now and leave more wiggle room in the future from FFP standpoint. These are muddy accounting waters, but I fully trust Purslow knows what he is doing. Derby got done for doing the exact opposite, accounting less amortisation upfront to be able to spent more at the time when they were pushing for promotion. The only reason for doing this is increased flexibility for the owners to ..... SPEND SPEND SPEND We seriously do have some of the best owners in world football. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: So, Everton are writing off around £200m over the last three seasons as "Covid related losses" which don't count toward FFP. They're also deducting their investment in a new stadium and improvements to their training ground, in order to make their actual losses of £372m into FFP losses of just under £105m over three years - within the allowed limit. If we take the same path, we've lost around £200m over the three year period - can we write all of that off as Covid related? Can we then add on the cost of rebuilding Bodymoor and the Academy and the minor alterations of Villa Park? If so, then I reckon we're in an FFP profit of about £35m - allowing us to spend £140m in the summer (without any other investment or income) and still stay well within FFP rules. Surely that can't be right? How on earth do Everton lose £200m over three seasons due to Covid? Their total matchday income over that period in normal circumstances is less than £60m and they've been able to sell tickets for half of it - I have a feeling the TV rebate was only around £35m - where has the other £120m+ that Covid has forced them to miss out on come from? I'm not sure whether to be outraged that Everton are trying to get away with this or pleased because if they can, then we can too. FFP is a joke. Stadium and training facilities are excluded from FFP calcs. While there should be scrutiny on Covid losses. Difficult to see how they can get away with saying 200m was due to covid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: Good point. Although I seem to recall that was about the limit of what could be claimed. Everton haven't claimed extraordinary amounts in the first two years of this three year FFP period in so far as I'm aware, surely they can't be attempting to write off more than £100m in Covid losses in a single year? It's ridiculous - by rights they should be looking at a points penalty - if I'm in charge of any of the other teams in the relegation race this season, I'm all over this. If they get away with it, then if I'm running any club, I'm writing off losses in my next accounting period against just about whatever I like. How you can go from losses of £372m to writing up a loss of less than £105m is just ridiculous. They've essentially lost £175m more than us over three years and are claiming to be within the rules - Wolves have lost around £40m in total over that period - £330m less than Everton - and yet we're all seemingly playing by the same rules. If they got a points penalty it will be next season. I'm sure they won't get away with this when the Premier League review it. They can attribute extra losses to the Stadium as I imagine Covid impacted construction which cost the club more in the period, but as those costs are always excluded from FFP calcs it'll be easier to see what lost revenue due to covid they are claiming and that's where they will be caught most likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 30, 2022 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2022 44 minutes ago, CVByrne said: If they got a points penalty it will be next season. I'm sure they won't get away with this when the Premier League review it. They can attribute extra losses to the Stadium as I imagine Covid impacted construction which cost the club more in the period, but as those costs are always excluded from FFP calcs it'll be easier to see what lost revenue due to covid they are claiming and that's where they will be caught most likely I think the league have already approved their accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted April 7, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 7, 2022 Okay chaps and those in the know, how do these new financial fair play rules announced today affect us. I caught on the news they have suggested Man City‘s owners have been bolstering their income again but nothing seems to have been done and that these new rules could result in legal cases if the aforementioned happens. Thank you in anticipation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: Okay chaps and those in the know, how do these new financial fair play rules announced today affect us. I caught on the news they have suggested Man City‘s owners have been bolstering their income again but nothing seems to have been done and that these new rules could result in legal cases if the aforementioned happens. Thank you in anticipation They don't affect us at all atm. These are UEFA rules, they don't apply to domestic competitions and we are not in Europe. Edited April 7, 2022 by Czarnikjak 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted April 7, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 7, 2022 35 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: They don't affect us at all atm. These are UEFA rules, they don't apply to domestic competitions and we are not in Europe. So they'll apply to us in the season after next then? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted May 1, 2022 Share Posted May 1, 2022 so.... What difference will we have this summer in relation to wages/transfer flexibility/budget, now we will have "3 full PL seasons" under our belt in terms of money etc? (rather than the 2 champ/1 PL, then 1 champ/2 PL etc) Is it that big a jump from 2021/22 to 2023/23 finances?, in terms of what we can afford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted May 1, 2022 Share Posted May 1, 2022 41 minutes ago, MaVilla said: so.... What difference will we have this summer in relation to wages/transfer flexibility/budget, now we will have "3 full PL seasons" under our belt in terms of money etc? (rather than the 2 champ/1 PL, then 1 champ/2 PL etc) Is it that big a jump from 2021/22 to 2023/23 finances?, in terms of what we can afford? We can afford loads via FFP anyway due to selling Grealish. People often forget about amortisation with FFP Its down to the owners what they want to spend as it all comes out of their pocket. I wouldn’t worry about FFP outside of us getting near it’s limits or the owners declaring or showing they don’t want to finance us anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 Just now, paul514 said: We can afford loads via FFP anyway due to selling Grealish. People often forget about amortisation with FFP Its down to the owners what they want to spend as it all comes out of their pocket. I wouldn’t worry about FFP outside of us getting near it’s limits or the owners declaring or showing they don’t want to finance us anymore. cool thanks. I kind of meant more in terms of wages than transfer fees, as i imagine the transfer kitty "could" be huge if NSWE wanted it to be. I was more thinking, does the 3 years PL thingy, give us a lot more wiggle room for wages?, now the 3 PL years go against income vs what wages can be realistically afforded? I suppose my point is, are we more likely to see some big signings this summer, on next level wages? (to attract the next level of player(s) we need to try and kick on) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, MaVilla said: cool thanks. I kind of meant more in terms of wages than transfer fees, as i imagine the transfer kitty "could" be huge if NSWE wanted it to be. I was more thinking, does the 3 years PL thingy, give us a lot more wiggle room for wages?, now the 3 PL years go against income vs what wages can be realistically afforded? I suppose my point is, are we more likely to see some big signings this summer, on next level wages? (to attract the next level of player(s) we need to try and kick on) Wages aren’t limited outside of losses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 2, 2022 Moderator Share Posted May 2, 2022 6 hours ago, MaVilla said: I kind of meant more in terms of wages than transfer fees, Transfer fees tend to hit the headlines more, but wages are often the underlying issue with more significance. Even more so now the UEFA competition FFP rules limit spending on wages, transfers and agents' fees to 70% of revenue (transition is 90% in 23/24, then 80% the next season, then 70% from 25/26). So if Villa has aims about competing in Europe the wage bill needs to be carefully managed and it’s also undoubtedly one of the reasons the club will be looking to squeeze ever more revenue from every conceivable source. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 Probably Relevant here Premier League bonuses: Conte’s £2m for top four and 25% wage cut for Man United squad - The Athletic Quote Aston Villa Win bonuses of a substantial six-figure sum are only paid out if Aston Villa finish in 14th place or higher. It was decided that staying in the Premier League was not enough to warrant an additional end-of-season payment so a structured system was put in place instead. The size of the bonus increases the higher Villa finish in the table, and is understood to be reduced accordingly depending on the number of games each individual has featured in. Villa have not finished in the top half of the Premier League for over a decade so they used the bonus scheme as a further incentive to motivate the players. Quote Brighton A collective bonus system for the Premier League has been in place at Brighton since they were promoted from the Championship in 2017. It is essentially funded by the meritocracy that exists in the league (just over £2 million in extra prize money is awarded for every place higher that the team finishes). This has become especially relevant at Brighton in the climax to the current campaign. After ending up in the bottom six in each of the four completed seasons so far, they can finish in the top 10 this time — and the players will get a share of that bigger prize money pot. I assume ours is similar to Brighton, but we only pay out from 14th place or higher. I think this is smart wage management. As if we didn't pay any material bonuses for league placings we would have high salaries that are the same cost to the club regardless of performance related income. For example finishing 8th vs 14th is a £15m difference in club income. That equates to the full years pay of our 3 top earners wages. While if we pay out the majority of league placing prize money to players our financial situation is always stable and reliable and allows players the potential to earn bigger wages. So let's say all 2.2m per place is paid out to players based on game time and league placings from 14th up. 11 players 38 games. So a player who plays 90 mina in all 38 games would get 200k bonus per league placing above 14th. So if we ended 10th that would be £1mil additional bonus for that player. For a top earner who is on £5mil per season that's a big bonus. It's a smart way we do contracts. Very smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 11, 2022 Moderator Share Posted August 11, 2022 Posts about sponsorship moved to here. Please stay on topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 I really think the lack of further transfer activity is to do with our wage bill v revenue. Whilst our net spend may be low - our wages have surely increased given the profile of signings we have made. We are no longer buying younger prospects but ready made players in their peak. This usually means peak wages. I wonder what our wage bill is now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 14 minutes ago, omariqy said: I really think the lack of further transfer activity is to do with our wage bill v revenue. Whilst our net spend may be low - our wages have surely increased given the profile of signings we have made. We are no longer buying younger prospects but ready made players in their peak. This usually means peak wages. I wonder what our wage bill is now? It was 137m in the last set of published accounts for Season 20/21. Anyone fancy adjusting for arrivals/departures/new contracts since then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts