Jump to content

Our Finances


smetrov
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not a witch hunt thread (its O'Neil ls fault - no Randy's a tight c**nt etc)

...But what is the problem with our finances ......its a few years since I worked in finance but is it simply

Our Income - Less our Outgoings = - £50m pa - which randy covers ?

But then what of the sky money and the profits we made on Barry, Milner, Young, Downing ......

Over to the ACCA boys/Girls ................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Not a witch hunt thread (its O'Neil ls fault - no Randy's a tight c**nt etc)

...But what is the problem with our finances ......its a few years since I worked in finance but is it simply

Our Income - Less our Outgoings = - £50m pa - which randy covers ?

But then what of the sky money and the profits we made on Barry, Milner, Young, Downing ......

Over to the ACCA boys/Girls ................

Tot up how much money we have lost on transfers and how many have not turned in to anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, we need to get better value for money from our playing staff. That means shifting out players on big contracts, and bringing in players of equal quality on less money. And in the process reducing the wage bill.

I think the club wants to be breaking even in a few years. I can understand that, but in order to do that we'll need to continue to increase our income in order to remain competitive. I don't think that many Premier League football clubs run at a profit these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tot up how much money we have lost on transfers and how many have not turned in to anything.

someone posted a table earlier that said we'd spent 201m over the last 10 years on transfers

i can think of 86.5 m we've recouped over the last 4/5 alone

Barry 12m

Milner 18m

Downing 20m

A Young 17m

Collins 2.5m

Knight 4m

Gardner 3m

Cahill 5m

Moore 3m

Ridgewell 2m

and that's just off the top of me head. so even if you said 100m has come back in, that's still just 10m net outlay per season on transfers

we're hardly Man City are we!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression was that wages has been too high for a while. Wages covered almost 90% of turnover in O'Neill's last season. Over the period from June'09 until May'11 the club had a -90 million deficit, according to BBC.

Add to that the big outlays of sacking and replacing staff. Not to get gobbled up in 'Dougonomics' but you can't count the outlay and income on transfers and assume there are no other costs. Players get sign-on fees, loyalty bonuses when leaving , so does their agents, and the sums are shocking.

From Oct'10 to Sept11 (two windows) Villa spent close to £3.2m on agent fees.

source - source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2009 apparently we were the 21 most valuable football club in the world according to forbes

that list is based on turnover.

If there was a list compiled on profit/loss it would look very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like buying a car. We chose the old luxury car. Looked like a deal initially, but a few years on its starting to show its age. We are paying too much to keep it up and running awe can't sell it. Worst of all, it's lost the performance we once loved it for.

Hopefully PL can get us a good trade value towards that new sedan we've been eying!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Aston Villa: detailed income statement (£000s)
ASTON VILLA
2011 figures first / 2010
Turnover    92028  /  90866
Loan fees received   000  /   113
Wages    -83395  /  -79974
Other costs    -24725  /  -25179
Depreciation and amortisation    -38503  /  -36560
Exceptional costs    -12036 /   0
Operating loss (before exceptionals)    -66631 /   -50734
Amortisation, depreciation, disposal of assets etc    38503 /   36560
Working Capital movements    32179  /  -3359
Operating cash flow    4051   / -17533
Interest paid    -665  /  -830
Net capital expenditure    -1795  /  -7007
Player trading    -18295  /  -18877
Net cash outflow (before financing, inc exceptionals)    -28740  /  -44247

 

from the telegraph 10 May 2012, 2010/11 figures. came with this little write up:

 

 

 Aston Villa
 
The Aston Villa crest tattooed on Randy Lerner's ankle has become a ball and chain. Villa spent £73m more than they earned in the two-season period ending last May. Although the sales of Gareth Barry and James Milner to Manchester City raised tens of millions, they spent net £37.2m on transfers over the period. They have become solvent, covering costs from cash income. But there is little resource for squad investment without Lerner's support. Compensation was costly: £12.4m after Martin O'Neill and Gerard Houllier left. It may weigh heavily when Lerner ponders whether to sack Alex McLeish....
 
this was from the 9th May last year also the Telegraph.
 
Premier League solvency index 2011
TEAM
INDEX (£M)
Manchester United    70.332
Tottenham    66.388
Arsenal    35.922
Chelsea    29.035
Wolves    17.888
Newcastle United    14.923
Liverpool    11.540
Blackpool    9.859
Wigan    7.028
Stoke City    6.837
Aston Villa    3.386
Sunderland    3.251
Fulham    2.996
West Ham United    2.914
Everton    -2.216
West Bromwich Albion    -2.944
Bolton Wanderers    -3.912
Blackburn Rovers    -4.577
Manchester City    -22.026

 

• Solvency index for 2010-11 is compiled using operating cashflow minus interest paid/plus received

 

 

Cant find much of this years figures yet (released 2013 for 2011/12) apart from this line from the mail - 

 

 

"Everton, Aston Villa, Fulham and Sunderland are currently ranked 26th to 29th with revenues of between £80.5m to £78m respectively."
 
So however much we've saved on wages in that time is likely to be offset by a £12 - 14m drop in income on the previous year and the fees paid to Grant, McCleish & Norwich (more for the "exceptional costs" column).
 
* It's probably worth noting that the 2010/11 season was the first season Uefa are monitoring under the new FFP rules. the figures we're waiting for the second. as it is the first 3 year peroid (2010/11 - 11/12 - 12/13) wages from contracts agreed before 01/06/2010 were not included in the calculations until 12/13 (i.e now). These caveats no longer apply for the 12/13 - 14/15 period and onwards. where running a loss of more than 30m euros over a 3 year period could see us ultimately banned from European competition. Not applicable to our current plight i know but are these bans offset until the next time you do qualify? Its a lot of jargon but i found a great site here that explains what Uefa are tracking -
 
 
I know the added revenue from the new TV deal will mean Premier League clubs should have little to worry about from next year onwards. but surely this all backs up the idea that randy should be magicing up a little more investment RIGHT NOW to try and guarantee we dont end up in the championship losing more and more revenue with a premier league wage bill. The firesale that would accompany relegation could be alot more drastic than some people "hoping we go down" would care to imagine. 
 
Of course, thats just my opinion
 
Oh and it seems the premier league clubs vote next month on implementing its own FFP regulations. We are one of the 4 clubs "strongly opposed" apparently.
Edited by VILLAMARV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the money the owner paid for the club to come up with an inflated spending figure since he took over seems a tad unreasonable to me because no doubt he would expect to get that back when he sells up and as I recall it the previous owner sold for the figure he did on the understanding that Randy would use the £20m balance between Deadly's valuation and what he took from Randy for the club on buying players so that needs to be taken out of the spending figure on players and added to the cost of purchase for me (which he will either get back or not when and if he sells).

As has been said a PL club cannot currently be safely run on a break even basis. You cannot expect to lower wages, let players go (because their wages are now more than we are prepared to pay or they want to move on to a bigger club) and not replace them on a like for like basis without it showing on the football pitch as well as on the balance sheet. Randy took a risk that did not come off when he spent for the CL. It seems we as fans are now expected to accept the consequences which are a real risk of a relegation we may not come back from any time soon and a frugal policy that has left us all embarrassed by our recent results.

Randy has been good news for this football club and has ploughed a lot of his own money into it but the decline over the seasons since MON left which he has overseen is not acceptable and the risk he takes of relegation and the impact that would have on his investment seems too big for him to choose to take. Over to the accountants....

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

...a PL club cannot currently be safely run on a break even basis.

There's a number who do, of all sizes - from Arsenal and Spurs, to Wigan and Albion. Man U as well. And there will be other examples.

Abroad most German sides operate at a profit.

.. You cannot expect to lower wages, let players go (because their wages are now more than we are prepared to pay or they want to move on to a bigger club) and not replace them on a like for like basis without it showing on the football pitch as well as on the balance sheet. Randy took a risk that did not come off when he spent for the CL. It seems we as fans are now expected to accept the consequences which are a real risk of a relegation we may not come back from any time soon and a frugal policy that has left us all embarrassed by our recent results.

Randy has been good news for this football club and has ploughed a lot of his own money into it but the decline over the seasons since MON left which he has overseen is not acceptable and the risk he takes of relegation and the impact that would have on his investment seems too big for him to choose to take. Over to the accountants....

But that's all very fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not forgetting the money RL spent on the holte pub, and finishing the training ground?

 

which the numbers im to believe are the following

 

£4m on the holte pub

£8m on finishing the training ground (doug already spent £5, so a total of £13m)

 

now the above is just hear say and what ive read online, i dont know how close these figures are to actual however, if randy has spent £12m on vacilities, then that £8m on players whih has quickly disapeared on tripe

 

but then, didnt we own land next to aston leisure centre called sirpentine? has that now been sold or do we still own it for match day parking?

Edited by AndyBM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not forgetting the money RL spent on the holte pub, and finishing the training ground?

 

which the numbers im to believe are the following

 

£4m on the holte pub

£8m on finishing the training ground (doug already spent £5, so a total of £13m)

 

now the above is just hear say and what ive read online, i dont know how close these figures are to actual however, if randy has spent £12m on vacilities, then that £8m on players whih has quickly disapeared on tripe

 

but then, didnt we own land next to aston leisure centre called sirpentine? has that now been sold or do we still own it for match day parking?

 

 

Im not quite sure what your point is ? - I don't think anyone would dispute those figures re the training ground and the Holte pub. But I don't understand the connection with £8m on tripe players ?

 

For whats it worth, Lerner is sitting on multi millions, theres £70m incoming if we can stay in the PL this season. For some reason he isn't prepared to gamble even £10m to make this more likely. The only feasible reason can be that he is longer interested in Aston Villa.

 

Yes, I know 'why should he prop up Aston Villa' - but that's what Billionaire owners do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
Â