Our Finances

[Big_John_10]

If we aim to become a club that breaks even surely staying up this year and finishing as high as possible is key to that. Surely with the increase in revenue being in the premier league will make it a lot easier for us to become this type of club over the next few years.

I can't see how if we're relegated we'll be able to become a team that breaks even and gets promotion and manages to survive.

Lerner though through his decision making in the summer and especially this window is now making this task harder and harder.

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

After the mess he's got us in I think he should have done what ever was needed to make sure we stay up.

[P3te]

the sky money and transfers in are all accounted for in our released books, and we're still running tens of millions in the red

 

that's the problem with our finances

[P3te]

I can't see how if we're relegated we'll be able to become a team that breaks even and gets promotion and manages to survive.

 

 

I think there's a perverse logic at play by Lerner in that if we go down and get the finances sorted for a Championship level side, then come back up, he's thinking he'll be able to spend a fortune on bringing in players, but still keeping within a set wage structure. He's trying to have that wage structure now, but it's grossly skewed with players not contributing making 3 times as much as those who are. IMO it's a case of break it all down, start again, and manage it properly financially; at least that seems to be what I assume Lerner's thinking.

 

That all hinges very much on an absolute miracle and us getting up first time of asking. Someone needs to tell Lerner that doesn't happen too often, but given that Lambert has been in charge of two promotions he probably reckon's he's the man for the rebuild job. There's a tiny percentage chance, IMO, that it'll come off but it's definitely not worth the risk - not when you consider how much the TV money goes up by next year. It's a bad year to go down.

Of course if we don't go down this year, we'll probably go down next year anyway

[John]

"There's a number who do, of all sizes - from Arsenal and Spurs, to Wigan and Albion. Man U as well". Point well made Blandy. But Arsenal, Spurs and Manchester United have a bigger income and started from a better position than we did post MON. Wigan are not safely run on a break even basis but they have become proven fighters when the going gets tough so make a habit of staying up mostly against the odds. Albion were a yo-yo club up until the last couple of seasons and seem to be the club we now aspire to become. But 3 years ago they were small time when considered alongside us and what worked for them may not work for us.

[briny_ear]

genius.

Have you had experience of running and football club and know what is needed, playing staff and none playing staff?

What a strange comment.

 

How many football clubs do you run?

 

Villa's large staffing figures are a well-known mystery.

 

I believe the most recent figures show we have 400 permanent non-playing staff.

 

This compares for example with figures for Spurs of of 156, and Everton of 110. Arsenal come closer with 371. (Slight caveat is that it's not always clear these figures are exactly equivalent but you get the broad idea.)

 

I don't think anyone knows what all these staff do and why we need them when busy clubs like Spurs and Everton don't and even  a big employing club like Arsenal have fewer staff.

Edited January 28, 2013 by briny_ear

[PussEKatt]

Why are we the only PL club that is cutting cost's ?

I think its because Lerner can afford to buy a PL club but can not afford to keep it running.

FFS, Liverpolol can afford to pay 30 million for 1 player and they don't have to cut cost's, so why are we cutting costs when we dont even look at a player if he costs over 10 million ? 

[CrackpotForeigner]

Villa's large staffing figures are a well-known mystery.

 

I believe the most recent figures show we have 400 permanent non-playing staff.

 

This compares for example with figures for Spurs of of 156, and Everton of 110. Arsenal come closer with 371. (Slight caveat is that it's not always clear these figures are exactly equivalent but you get the broad idea.)

 

I don't think anyone knows what all these staff do and why we need them when busy clubs like Spurs and Everton don't and even  a big employing club like Arsenal have fewer staff.

I'd imagine it's pretty hard to compare apples with apples. For instance things like the merchandise shops: some clubs would probably outsource everything while others would do in-house stuff on some levels. Other areas like marketing would be similar. The numbers aren't necessarily a measure of how tight a ship is being run.

[briny_ear]

I'd imagine it's pretty hard to compare apples with apples. For instance things like the merchandise shops: some clubs would probably outsource everything while others would do in-house stuff on some levels. Other areas like marketing would be similar. The numbers aren't necessarily a measure of how tight a ship is being run.

 

That's true of course. If I was looking for evidence of how tightly the ship was being run, I'd probably look first at the record on player transfers and wages where it's hard to argue that we have always had a plan or got value for money.

 

The figures on non-playing staff just raise a question in my mind: are we absolutely sure we need 400 when Spurs can do it on around 160 and Everton on even less? You'd want to be sure that every one of those 400 was paying their way and their employment was absolutely essential to help the club get where it wants to (if anyone at the club knows where that is any more). 

 

If the club was doing fantastically well financially this would maybe not be an issue but at a time of cost cutting you would want to be sure all non-core costs were being driven down before cutting into the core costs  the playing staff.

[PompeyVillan]

I think Briny, rather than the 400 non-football employees, most of which will earn a modest salary we should be looking at getting the playing staff costs down to a reasonable level. 

 

Why should a hardworking, normal member of the Villa staff lose their job because the circus of a board have spent too much money on players? 

 

I don't see it that way personally. Non footballing staff should not be cut, that would be horrific and flippin' hypocritical. If Randy has/had the money to spunk millions on players, he can certainly support the staff reliant on their jobs to put food on the table. 

[briny_ear]

we should be looking at getting the playing staff costs down to a reasonable level. 

I may just have been hallucinating over the past two seasons, but I thought that was what the club is doing, and is why we are being driven inexorably towards relegation?

 

The point about the non-playing staff is really separate, it's just a question about why we need so many to run the club when others seem to manage on many fewer. It may be part of the generally poor running of the club that seems to have been ever present in the Lerner era.

 

Apologies if it sounds harsh, but you can't determine the level of employees you need out of feelings of sympathy towards the workforce. Running an efficient business requires tough decisions.

[coda]

We should get some of the injured/dropped players to multitask serving alcohol and burgers on match days.

[PompeyVillan]

I may just have been hallucinating over the past two seasons, but I thought that was what the club is doing, and is why we are being driven inexorably towards relegation?

 

The point about the non-playing staff is really separate, it's just a question about why we need so many to run the club when others seem to manage on many fewer. It may be part of the generally poor running of the club that seems to have been ever present in the Lerner era.

 

Apologies if it sounds harsh, but you can't determine the level of employees you need out of feelings of sympathy towards the workforce. Running an efficient business requires tough decisions.

 

You're right of course, we're trying to reduce wages etc. I understand what you're saying, and from a business perspective, it makes total sense. Save where you can save, it sounds excessive that we have 400 employees. Perhaps we hire catering staff rather than using agency workers? That kind of thing. 

 

For a moral perspective, I think it would be wrong of the club to save money at the cost of people losing their jobs. Maybe this is something the club will try to do over time? I don't know, you suspect so if the club isn't going to be bankrolled by Randy anymore.