The AVFC FFP thread

[ellebonnie]

Ffs

We probably have the best owners/ custodians in the league who have a major massive long term plan for our club and us as fans. Everything will be fine, they will not let us down just sit back relax and let it pan out as they plan not as we think.

 

“”It is important to note that these figures are in line with the strategic business plan, and we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules. The owners of Aston Villa remain committed to the long-term and sustainable development of the Club, and we look forward to continued progress on the delivery of our strategic plan.””

 

UTV

[MaVilla]

45 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Can you share your working out please?

[DublinVilla]

1 hour ago, allani said:

The beauty of this is that it won't be Atairos or Comcast but it will almost certainly be one of the brands they own (or have very strong business links to).  For example, Comcast own Sky - so that would be one very obvious brand that could easily justify a major sponsorship deal.

Hadn’t really thought of it before but having a link with Comcast could be quite valuable, as owners of Sky, they must have some influence on what games they choose to show and if I’m not mistaken don’t we get more money they more we are shown? Could they drive up our revenue my ensuring more of our games are chosen for TV coverage? Probably wishful thinking on my part as Sky haven’t shown any change in their opinion (dislike) of us since the takeover! 

[paul514]

A lot of the pant wetting on here is because the posters don't understand the difference between a real loss and an FFP loss.

You buy a player for 50m on a 5 year deal keep him 2 years and then sell him for 30m..... That is a 20m pound loss in the real world.
However, for FFP the 50m fee is amortized over 5 years (10m per year) so his book value when he was sold was 30m and therefore no loss was made.

This is why you can spend crap loads of money on players IF you make large profits on players book value when you sell them AND you have owners who want to pay the fees out their own pockets so the real spend doesn't count on the books only the amortization cost.
 

[MWARLEY2]

2 hours ago, paul514 said:

A lot of the pant wetting on here is because the posters don't understand the difference between a real loss and an FFP loss.

You buy a player for 50m on a 5 year deal keep him 2 years and then sell him for 30m..... That is a 20m pound loss in the real world.
However, for FFP the 50m fee is amortized over 5 years (10m per year) so his book value when he was sold was 30m and therefore no loss was made.

This is why you can spend crap loads of money on players IF you make large profits on players book value when you sell them AND you have owners who want to pay the fees out their own pockets so the real spend doesn't count on the books only the amortization cost.
 

Exactly. . What they are doing is spending right up to the absolute max level they are allowed to i guess , in order to try and secure future success. The disapointing part though is how much we have lost on paper despite it being for a season where we spent v little on transfers. Shows how difficult it is to generate income

 

[Pinebro]

Don't we get 100+ million for finishing inthe top 4 in the prem?

So sell one player for 50M and we're suddenly fine

[CVByrne]

Quote

During this financial year, the Club has invested a further £63.7m in the acquisition of new players whilst also generating a profit of over £22m from player sales. This investment is part of the reason why employee wage costs rose to £194.2m (up from £137m) although there were also increases in central support functions to support the growth of the Club which resulted in a 9% increase in overall employee numbers. The amortisation of player contracts also increased by £10m to £92.5m reflecting the increased investment in playing staff.

Aston Villa End of Year Accounts | AVFC

So 217.7m income, 22m profit in player sales, 194.2m in total wages and 92.5m in amortisation. That comes to a -47m loss

So where is the rest of the loss coming from. 

[CVByrne]

On 19/02/2024 at 08:15, CVByrne said:

I can reconcile two things with 2022 the profit/loss before tax as zero and our wage bill in 2022. So as I can reconcile both of we assume the figures for the wage growth and the losses for 2023.

I'd take our -£96m 2022 figure before sales and add on the following numbers we are fairly sure about. 

-£52m for wage growth (assume Gerrard pay off and hiring Emery is here)

+£22m for increased revenue from finishing 7th

+£25m from player sales. 

Which gives me -£101m and which is -£16m short of £117m loss (€138m).

Let's say 6m is increased spending in allowable losses (youth, women's etc..)

£10m is increase in Amortisation. 

That gets us to -£117m with allowable deductions of £28m to get -£89m for 2023 in FFP 

 

This would put our 3 year PSR at 

-£24m +£24m and -£89m very close to the limit. 

 

So my calculations from last month seems pretty close. I feel this season we can make a jump in revenue of £25m in prize money (ECL / PL) and then new commercial deals (15m) and more matchday revenue£10m. So revenue bump of around £50m this season hopefully

[CVByrne]

	2022	2023	2024
Match Day	16.1	21.7	26
Broadcast	123.2	147	175
Commercial	39.1	49	60
Income	178.4	217.7	261
Wages	-137	-194.2	-194.2
Other Costs	-41.9	-49	-49
Player Amort	-82.5	-92.5	-92.5
Depreceiation	-3.5	-3.5	0
Non-Recurring income/cost	-9.8	-20	0
Gain on player sales	97.4	22	40
Exepenses	-177.3	-337.2	-295.7
Operating Profit/Loss	1.1	-119.5	-34.7
Allowable Deductions	22	25	25
PSR Figure	23.1	-94.5	-9.7

 

So the 2022 figures there are from our accounts. The totals in 2023 figures are correct I've estimated the Match Day and Commerical revenue increases as Broadcast numbers are fairly set as it's PL prize money. That gives the accurate income of 217.7. I've taken the Wages, Amortisation and player sales profits as per 2023 accounts statement. I've made up increases in Other Costs and Non recurring costs to get to the loss figure. The latter in 2022 accounts was Deano sacking and Gerrard hiring. I'm going with near 20m for that in Gerrard sacking and Emery hiring. 

Our blended accounts for Covid in PSR was -24 so in the 3 years we are at -95m so  10m under the limit. 

I'm then estimating our income growth for 23/24 based on finishing 4th and going deep in ECL. I'm also growing match day and commercial income too. I think a figure of 260m is realistic. Then as we have not sacked and hired managers this season the Non-recurring costs drop off and we look to have made £40m profit from selling players a jump of 18m from last season. So overall that's a ~ £80m swing from 23 to 24 accounts. 

So that means we've around £24m space for increased wages/amortisation in 23/24 

Edited March 5 by CVByrne

[Frodo]

So does the pausing of the North stand now make sense in the fact that we need gate receipts going forward along with other revenues just to try & compete. The £110 million that it will cost isn't the problem as it doesn't effect ffp but only having 3 stands open & not 4 within a 18 month - to 2 year period would effect our revenue from gat receipts.

[CVByrne]

Quote

The club also saw a capital investment into the club for infrastructure rise from £7.1m in 2021/22 to £13.4m in 2022/23, an allowable deduction. Add into that the investment in the women’s team and youth academy, including the building of the new academy building at Brookvale, and the losses reduce further still. Last year Villa spent some £19m, combined, on youth development, women’s football, and community projects.

What £120m Aston Villa loss means for PSR and summer transfer plans - Birmingham Live (birminghammail.co.uk)

It looks like our allowable deductions for 22/23 is more than £25m I used above. So more like £32m 

Edited March 5 by CVByrne

[tomsky_11]

8 hours ago, omariqy said:

Can you share your working out please?

I'll relook and share when have more time, and probably worth waiting for actual accounts to appear as will properly rework then, when hopefully have more info.

But if you look at @CVByrne workings on next page, I've got a more prudent worse case view on revenue (I think his is perfectly reasonable tbh) and I've also left in prior workings I had giving a bump to both wages and amortisation so about £10M up on each. Again though, I'd like to understand the increase in 22/23 a bit better, as seems incredibly high and wonder if there could be some weird one-offs here that won't carry through. So again, CV keeping these figures the same for 23/24 I don't think is out of the question.

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, Frodo said:

So does the pausing of the North stand now make sense in the fact that we need gate receipts going forward along with other revenues just to try & compete. The £110 million that it will cost isn't the problem as it doesn't effect ffp but only having 3 stands open & not 4 within a 18 month - to 2 year period would effect our revenue from gat receipts.

It’s the horns of a dilemma question. Long term there are 2 very, very strong arguments around FFP/PSR and the state of it, to rebuild it. It’s knackered, cramped and outdated. A new, bigger, stand will significantly increase income it’ll help hugely long term with FFP.  But… while it’s being rebuilt we’ll take an FFP hit on income in the shorter term. There’s no room to take that hit. We’re up against limits in the regs which say, essentially, do this and you’re **** for the next 2 years. You will have to weaken your sporting ability to do that rebuild and take 2 steps back.

There are also questions about how much can you squeeze people to cough up for premium seats and boxes in 2 years time.  It looks like the short term pressures have won out.

[tomsky_11]

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It looks like our allowable deductions for 22/23 is more than £25m I used above. So more like £32m 

I was going to mention we'll have more depreciation based on that. We won't have depreciated the full £7M increase in cap spend in one year though, so kick will be smaller than that.

[jimmygreaves]

2 hours ago, Pinebro said:

Don't we get 100+ million for finishing inthe top 4 in the prem?

So sell one player for 50M and we're suddenly fine

Or several fringe players....

[CVByrne]

So I think we are ok for UEFA too.  They allow €80m loss in the 2 years which is £69m. 

[CVByrne]

30 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

I was going to mention we'll have more depreciation based on that. We won't have depreciated the full £7M increase in cap spend in one year though, so kick will be smaller than that.

Yes, so more an increase in the Depreciation from the 22 accounts. So my £25m estimate for 2023 is probably right

[one_ian_taylor]

11 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Does anyone actually know how FFP works

Buy high, sell low

[VillaJ100]

So how much will we have to spend on players this summer? Without selling

[Follyfoot]

Just now, VillaJ100 said:

So how much will we have to spend on players this summer? Without selling

£0.0000