collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Gordon Cowans by Nunkin1965
[Today at 11:01:49 AM]


Villa Park Redevelopment by Richard E
[Today at 11:00:08 AM]


All aboard the shuttle bus. by Nev
[Today at 10:25:19 AM]


FFP by thick_mike
[Today at 10:19:47 AM]


Other Games - 2023/24 by Baldy
[Today at 10:14:15 AM]


Aston Villa v Wolverhampton Wanderers Pre Match by Ian.
[Today at 10:01:07 AM]


Please Donate to Keep This Site Going - Link on Left & Top of Page by Bad English
[Today at 06:57:08 AM]


Muppet Donations by Bad English
[Today at 06:56:08 AM]

Recent Posts

Re: Gordon Cowans by Nunkin1965
[Today at 11:01:49 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by Richard E
[Today at 11:00:08 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by PeterWithesShin
[Today at 10:58:06 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by ChicagoLion
[Today at 10:54:17 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by Sexual Ealing
[Today at 10:51:38 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by langleylions
[Today at 10:50:52 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by Clampy
[Today at 10:47:03 AM]


Re: Villa Park Redevelopment by AV82EC
[Today at 10:46:47 AM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: 2010 Aston Villa accounts  (Read 22659 times)

Offline VillaAlways

  • Member
  • Posts: 6704
  • GM : 23.10.2016

Offline Simon Ward

  • Member
  • Posts: 5595
  • Location: My garden shed
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2011, 12:42:18 PM »
As ever it is the wages to turnover ratio that is the scary statistic as the loan notes can always be re-negotiated assuming Randy doesn't fall out of love with Villa. A 60% ratio of wages to turnover assuming all other costs stay in line would be sustainable on current turnover so I think we can assume some hard decisions will have to be made over player contracts in the next few years. Also the new UEFA rules over financial stability will come into play!

Offline Rudy Can't Fail

  • Member
  • Posts: 38937
  • Location: In the Shade
    • http://www.heroespredictions.co.uk/pl/
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2011, 02:12:20 PM »
What month is it until or is it the end of 2010?
If until end of last season maybe the milner money would offset the loss a bit.

Up til 31/7/2010.

Then it covers the end of the Aston Villa deadwood years.

The next set of accounts should show a marked improvement.

The next set of accounts will be far worse.

We are still paying wages for a lot of the deadwood. There is not way Stoke are paying all of Carew's wages nor Newcastle with Ireland , we probably had to pay a balance in wages until the end of their existing Villa contracts to Sidwell and Davies, Beye and Warnock are still picking up every week, we'll lose out on any resale value if NRC goes in the summer. It ain't pretty.

Offline Ad@m

  • Member
  • Posts: 12563
  • GM : 23.03.2023
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2011, 02:37:10 PM »
Can anyone put these ratios into English ?? !!

Ratios

Date Of Accounts                  31/05/10   31/05/09   31/05/08   31/05/07   -
   Pre-tax profit margin %    -41.37   -54.89          -10.01          -7.39   -
   Current ratio                       0.19      0.37                0.37            0.12   -
   Sales/Net Working Capital      -1.85     -2.50          -2.66                   -0.85   -
   Gearing %                      485.30    241.20         166.80              171.70   -
   Equity in %                      20.20   30.60         38.90                   35.40   -
   Creditor Days                      95.42   82.08        108.16         165.69   -
   Debtor Days                      30.66   30.61   67.12                   35.36   -
   Liquidity/Acid Test                0.17    0.35     0.36                     0.12   -
   Return On Capital Employed %   -28.30   -32.28   -6.17           -3.16   -
   Return On Total Assets Employed %   -19.46   -23.48   -4.50             -2   -
   Current Debt Ratio                 2.39    1.25           .90                     1.28   -
   Total Debt Ratio                  6.67   3.60            2.33                     2.51   -
   Stock Turnover Ratio %          0.61   0.90            0.67                     0.62   -
   Return on Net Assets Employed %   -149.39   -108.11   -15.04   -7.05   

I'll have a go, although I haven't seen the accounts yet:

1)  Pre-tax profit margin - Pre-tax profit (or loss in our case!) as a percentage of turnover
2)  Current ratio - Ratio of current assets to current liabilities - effectively shows the ability of the club to manage its short-term working capital; anything positive is fine, if it's negative it indicates a serious issue
3)  Sales/Net working capital - Not sure on this one
4)  Gearing % - The ratio of long-term debt as a percentage of equity - this reflects the increasing investment from Randy
5)  Equity in % - Not sure on this one either
6)  Creditor days - The average length of time it takes us to pay our suppliers (in days)
7)  Debtor days - The average length of time our credit customers (ie not fans!) took to pay their debts
8.)  Liquidity/acid test - A more extreme version of the current ratio.  In manufacturing companies this would be the same calculation but excluding things like stock which you couldn't be sure of turning into cash at very short notice.  I wouldn't expect the club has much stock not sure why it's (admittedly only slightly) different.  It shows the clubs ability to pay it's day-to-day expenditure in more strict circumstances
9)  Return on capital employed - the amount of profit for every £1 of capital Randy's invested.  While we continue to make losses this will continue to be negative
10) Return on total assets employed - the same as above but for every £1 of assets in the business.
11) & 12)  Without looking at the accounts I'm not sure what these are.
13) & 14)  Pretty meaningless to the Villa.  Ratios for ratios sake!!

Hope that helps!

The other thing to remember is the accruals concept - a nuance in accounting which states that you account for income and expenditure in the period they relate to, not in the period they are paid or received.  The big impact this has on football clubs is in transfer fees paid.  Where we spend £24m on a 30 goals a season striker and get him to sign a 4 year contract, the £24m is spread over the 4 yrs for the purposes of the profit and loss account, rather than all being taken as a cost at the point the player is signed.  This means that big transfer fees can continue to generate losses many years after they were incurred. 

I wouldn't therefore expect the Villa to be making profits any time soon, regardless of whether they're making any money!

Offline Rip Van We Go Again

  • Member
  • Posts: 26039
  • Location: Up and down, i'm up the wall, i'm up the bloody tree
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2011, 02:43:38 PM »
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.

Offline usav

  • Member
  • Posts: 15400
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA.
  • GM : 09.02.2019
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2011, 02:44:48 PM »
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.

Yes - and completely explains why Randy was not prepared to back MON until the wage bill was reduced.

I predict somewhat of a cull in the summer.

Offline Rip Van We Go Again

  • Member
  • Posts: 26039
  • Location: Up and down, i'm up the wall, i'm up the bloody tree
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2011, 02:46:37 PM »
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.

Yes - and completely explains why Randy was not prepared to back MON until the wage bill was reduced.

I predict somewhat of a cull in the summer.
I think you're right usa.

Offline RonBurgundy

  • Member
  • Posts: 555
  • GM : 17.07.2019
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2011, 02:49:35 PM »
with a 10 second glance at the squad you could knock upwards of 300k a week off the wage bill - providing you can shift the  unwanted players and not accounting for new incoming players or improved contracts signed by existing ones.

Online Chico Hamilton III

  • Member
  • Posts: 19169
  • Location: South London
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2011, 02:50:21 PM »
Who would be responsible for negotiating the players' wages?

Is it the manager? CFO? someone else?


Offline Brend'Watkins

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21326
  • Location: North Birmingham Clique teritory
  • GM : 20.03.2025
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2011, 02:53:20 PM »
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.

Yes - and completely explains why Randy was not prepared to back MON until the wage bill was reduced.

I predict somewhat of a cull in the summer.
I think you're right usa.

But we will still have Oliver Holt and co saying we should have given MON more funds to do the job.  Clueless tossers that they are.


Offline Rip Van We Go Again

  • Member
  • Posts: 26039
  • Location: Up and down, i'm up the wall, i'm up the bloody tree
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2011, 02:54:04 PM »
with a 10 second glance at the squad you could knock upwards of 300k a week off the wage bill
That would still barely make a dent off the % turnover.

It's completely unsustainable.

A normal business would have either slashed costs or give up the ghost by now.

Anything over 60% of your turnover on wages is a poor business model.

Offline KevinGage

  • Member
  • Posts: 13351
  • Location: Singing from under the floorboards
  • GM : 20.09.20
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2011, 02:56:12 PM »
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.

Yes - and completely explains why Randy was not prepared to back MON until the wage bill was reduced.


Pretty much.

Can anyone really fault that now? Stupid thing is RL is on record as as saying he would make money available - providing the stubborn old goat would offload a few of the high earners not playing, yet he was unwilling/ unable to do so.

What would the turnover ratio be now if MON had remained, hadn't shifted players off the books and added to the mess with the likes of Keane and McGeady?

Offline KevinGage

  • Member
  • Posts: 13351
  • Location: Singing from under the floorboards
  • GM : 20.09.20
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2011, 03:00:15 PM »
That second Guardian piece is just about the first bit of balanced reporting I can recall from them in relation to MON, suggesting that he may have had a hand in his own downfall, rather than making him out to be some kind of martyr.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2011, 03:07:34 PM by KevinGage »

Offline Rip Van We Go Again

  • Member
  • Posts: 26039
  • Location: Up and down, i'm up the wall, i'm up the bloody tree
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2011, 03:00:28 PM »
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.

Yes - and completely explains why Randy was not prepared to back MON until the wage bill was reduced.


Pretty much.

Can anyone really fault that now? Stupid thing is RL is on record as as saying he would make money available - providing the stubborn old goat would offload a few of the high earners not playing, yet he was unwilling/ unable to do so.

What would the turnover ratio be now if MON had remained, hadn't shifted players off the books and added to the mess with the likes of Keane and McGeady?
Uh-oh
Rather you than me with that one Kevin.

40 pages.

Offline KevinGage

  • Member
  • Posts: 13351
  • Location: Singing from under the floorboards
  • GM : 20.09.20
Re: 2010 Aston Villa accounts
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2011, 03:06:46 PM »
Obviously it wouldn't have altered a huge amount as far as this report is concerned - unless they has been on board prior to July.

But RL and others would, I'm sure have had a fair idea of the overall ratio back then. To bloat it even further, with little or no movement the other way, would be close to reckless.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal