Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Shrek on February 26, 2011, 10:44:22 PM
-
Just found this link, abit worrying really.
http://astonvilla-views.com/2011/02/26/villa-record-a-loss-of-37m-for-the-year-avfc/
-
What do we keep telling you about looking there? You'll go blind.
-
Don't look at that the internet is for porn
-
I don't find it that worrying. It will be interesting to here Risso's take though as he is for more qualified than I to judge how worried one should be.
I'm guessing that if we are willing to sanction a potential £24million signing then the board are not too concerned with the finances. Either that or they are raging idiots.
The increased wage bill is a concern but something we all anticipated from last years accounts.
-
Just found this link, abit worrying really.
http://astonvilla-views.com/2011/02/26/villa-record-a-loss-of-37m-for-the-year-avfc/
It's extremely worrying that people are looking at Ian Robathan's website and taking it as anything more serious than the rantings of an illiterate dimwit.
-
He spent years and years and gallons of saliva trying to get rid of Ellis and now we have one of the best owners possible he spends just as much time trying to break the internet worrying about him too.
Ignore, wait for the grown-ups to peruse the finances first.
-
Even better than Tit Monday, it's Reform Acquisitions Limited Accounts Saturday!
The financial headlines are: (2009 figures in brackets)
Turnover £91m (£84m)
Operating expenses £141m (£128M)
Operating loss £50m (£44m)
Profit on player disposals £18m (£3m)
Interest payments (£5m) (£5m)
Total loss £38m (£46m)
Turnover is broken down as:
Matchday £24m (£23m)
Media £52m (£49m)
Commercial £14m (£12m)
Total £91m (84m)
Wages £80m (£70.5m)
Management charge £800K (£7.7m)
The only other interesting thing to note is that the club has cancelled £8m worth of the outstanding management charge to the parent company in return for the sale of £8m of freehold land. If you check the fixed asset note, this was "construction in progress". Anybody hazard a guess as to what this was? I'd guess something to do with the newly incorporated Reform Acquisitions Realty Limited, but other than that no idea.
So, another big loss then.
Anyway, I've got to get up at 6am to catch the ferry, so that's all for now. TTFN.
-
I smell a mods merge...
-
With Risso posting the same thing, do we worry now?
-
Couple of points from me, I'm disappointed with the Turnover figure was hoping it would be nearer £100m and the Matchday and Commercial figures havent moved on as much as hoped. Still worried that we're living above our means but we really need to improve that Turnover and curb the wages if we're to look more viable.
-
Those figures are horrendous!!
There is no way Randy can afford to keep bank rolling losses like this. Next year will be even worse. I think we may have to sell Ash, Downing and Gabby to try and cut the debt.
-
Oh God. I can sense all the bean counters getting collective semis.
And Villadawg cracking his knuckles and giving a quick chuckle before embarking on the dissection of his life.
-
How did wages go up so much when we didn't buy anyone in 2010 and got rid of deadwood like Harewood, Shorey and Gardner?
-
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.
-
Those figures are horrendous!!
There is no way Randy can afford to keep bank rolling losses like this. Next year will be even worse. I think we may have to sell Ash, Downing and Gabby to try and cut the debt.
Why? I'm pretty sure randy knows what's going on? He wouldn't have agreed to sign Bent & Makoun if we were going to sell everyone else.
-
How did wages go up so much when we didn't buy anyone in 2010 and got rid of deadwood like Harewood, Shorey and Gardner?
Full years of the signings from Summer 2010?
-
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.
-
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 commercial income is disappointing, does this include the FxPro sponsdor deal?
When are the Spurs accounts published?
-
We can't expect Brummies to pay London ticket prices. Seems to me that to compete we are going to need a bigger ground with more corporate areas and we need to fill it. We need the recession to end for this to happen though I reckon.
-
If it is 80mil on wages, what is costing 61million for the total operating expenses???
-
I can't believe we have let the wages get to high!
-
cup runs and European campaigns will help. Speculate to accumulate and all that..
-
Villa 2011 accounts I reckon will be worse re turnover with gates down and no cup runs
-
So have we made an overall loss of 38million?
If so does that mean Randy has to give Villa 38million this year to stay afloat?
-
couple of pieces in the guardian on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/mar/01/aston-villa-randy-lerner-accounts
Randy Lerner has plunged more than £200m into Aston Villa in the five years of his ownership, the Guardian can reveal.
Accounts lodged at Companies House last week for the Villa Park club's parent company, Reform Acquisitions, show Lerner has overseen the growth of revenues from £37.2m in 2006-7 – his first full season as a Premier League club owner – to £90.9m in 2010.
But alongside that strong growth has been the vaulting expansion of the wage bill. Villa's salary payments amounted to £22.4m in Lerner's first year, a just about sustainable 60% of the club's turnover. Today they have reached £79.9m or nearly 88% of the club's total revenues.
Losses last year were marginally down, from £46.1m in 2009 to £37.5m, but that was broadly attributable to the better returns from the transfer market. Booked net investment on players was down to £12.2m from £20m the previous year.
Yet still Villa are burning through Lerner's fortune. The US billionaire has injected £115.6m in equity and another £89.6m has come in through shareholder loans. Investments in player transfers alone have amounted to £138.8m but where it really counts – in the league table – there is precious little to show for it.
Villa finished 12th in Lerner's first season and sixth in each of the next three years; this season the former European champions have flirted more with relegation than courting the Champions League. Today they are 12th again.
The wages-to-turnover ratio is alarming because player wages are a particularly intractable problem. As Arsenal announced on Monday, in only six months they had achieved turnover of £120m yet the books did not ultimately balance: a £6.2m pre-tax loss ensued.
By no means are Arsenal in financial trouble; the loss in the interim accounts is attributable to a number of factors, not least a fixture list in which the Gunners play more often away than at home in the first half of this season. But the key contributor was the renegotiation of player contracts on more generous terms. "Every club has to compete for its own players," said Ivan Gazidis, the club's chief executive. "In the modern game that is true of every club." Not every club has a willing benefactor like Lerner but all must operate in an environment where wages are set by the most extravagant employers.
Yet even Lerner's patience is not inexhaustible and he wants the wages-to-turnover ration to return to 60%. Now Gérard Houllier will be called upon to deliver the managerial two-card trick that few have ever been capable of pulling off: bringing success with untried players from the club's own academy.
"We have an excellent academy with lots of very talented youngsters and Gérard is prepared to play them," said a high-ranked Villa insider. "You are locked into individual contracts but you are not locked into the overall bill. If you have a 35-man squad, with an average of two years on each there are plenty maturing each year. You always have that scope. And that is where the art of the manager has to be deployed."
So expect Villa to back away over the coming years from investing in more Stephen Irelands and Richard Dunnes in favour of attempting to win something with kids. It must be hoped Houllier will have a helping hand in that endeavour. Both Villa and Arsenal are members of the European Clubs Association, whose dialogue with Uefa helps shape the European regulatory environment. And both are looking to Uefa's financial fair-play rules as a means of stemming the flow of cash from club balance sheets.
"We shouldn't underestimate these rules; they will become a reality for leagues across Europe," said the Villa source.
"No one knows what kind of reality that will be because the rules must reflect the collective acceptance for football to be more sustainable than it is. But it is seeping into people's world view and it's going to help, hopefully, everyone get to a sustainable model."
Gazidis was still more forthright. "The escalation of player salaries to unsustainable levels means that those clubs who try to act responsibly find it more and more difficult," he said. "The extent the FFP are affecting decisions, we think that is healthy for the game. It influences not just those clubs whose spending has been above what their football revenues can sustain but also everybody else.
"I hope that Uefa will enforce those rules consistently and with transparency and I certainly hope that all the clubs who have supported it through the ECA will take the rules seriously." Fans of all but a tiny few clubs will depend on it.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/mar/01/aston-villa-cost-martin-oneill
Series: Digger
Aston Villa reveal cost of Martin O'Neill's time in charge
* Matt Scott
* The Guardian, Tuesday 1 March 2011
Aston Villa have made a cumulative loss of £112.75m over the almost five years of Randy Lerner's ownership. It is a phenomenal sum, most of it having vanished into the pockets of players: the wage bill now gives Villa only £26,000 change from £80m. For four of those five years the club's manager was Martin O'Neill.
Assisted by Lerner's free spending, the Irishman turned Villa from the 11th-placed Premier League team at the end of his first season in charge into the sixth-placed team, where he kept them for each of the next three years. But the push for the next level, which would have justified all that spending, never came and O'Neill parted company with Villa last August, four years and four days after he joined. Digger dug out Villa's accounts, which were filed without fanfare at Companies House last week, and there is a stark reference to O'Neill's departure.
"On 9 August 2010 Martin O'Neill resigned as manager of Aston Villa with immediate effect," said the accounts in the notes relating to "events after the balance sheet date". There was no touchy-feely reference to "by mutual consent" and there was no mention of compensation for loss of office. That is because none has been paid. O'Neill resigned and his resignation was readily accepted: clearly the club feels it owes him nothing.
Whether he has accepted the lack of compensation is quite another question, however. Richard Bevan, the chief executive of the League Managers Association, which acts for sacked managers, could not be reached yesterday.
-
as for my own views:
think a lot of the big earners will be ushered towards the door in the summer. - dunne (clark and cuellar are better and more consistent), petrov (his legs are going), heskey (expensive benchwarmer), ireland (fingers crossed he does well at newcastle).
carew, friedel and reo-coker will all be out of contract as well and the reality is they will probably be offered better deals elsewhere.
ashley young will be offered the captaincy. think he will stay one more season with an eye on the euro 2012 finals.
-
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
-
The thing that comes home for me from the Guardian piece is are we going to be able to hold onto our young players?
Imagine the scenario:-
We shift out the high wage earners and get the total bill down to a managable level in relation to our turnover. They come good are we're back in the CL chasing pack, but without the great expenditure doing so under MON cost us. But these kids now have agents, growing reputations and want the salaries their peers are getting. We won't/can't pay them without once again putting our wages to turnover ratio in a bad position, so they walk. Now, they might have more layalty than some others having been brought through the ranks here, but ultimately money talks in football. I'm not sure the FFP rules will help as we'd be stuck to them also, so clubs with bigger turnovers (in the CL and/or charging London prices) will always be able to offer higher wages.
To me what is crucial for us to get sustained success on the pitch is to get the turnover up to the point where we can spend heavily by money generated from within the club. That's the big task for Randy & Co.
-
I've just got hold of a copy of the accounts from companies house (available to anyone for £1). Scariest figure for me is the loss before player trading of £20m two seasons running now, with additional £5m in interest (£4.1 on loan notes payable to Randy's amercan parent company). Total loan notes as of 31/5/2010 was £89m - these are 10yr jobbies so some are repayable in full in 4 years.
Next year, we already have another £5m in loan notes Nov 10, plus whatever Randy has pumped in in January? Hopefully this November investment + Milner cash paid for Bent and J2M, but somehow doubt it.
£7.3m freehold land transferred to Randy's american holding company, mentioned above by somebody - any clues yet what this is?
Funniest item: R Lerner rents a property from the group, has paid £112.5k, but still owes £395k. Last year had £52k outstanding, so (395-52+112) £455k per annum - thats one hell of a property by reckoning!!!
-
From the Guardian
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/mar/01/aston-villa-cost-martin-oneill
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
88% of turnover on wages. Shocking.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Who would be responsible for negotiating the players' wages?
Is it the manager? CFO? someone else?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Who would be responsible for negotiating the players' wages?
Is it the manager? CFO? someone else?
The modern approach for that kind of thing to let the CEO do the big deals - just like they would in any kind of £100m turnover business. Daniel Levy is the most high profile example of this at Spurs - he's more high profile because they're listed and he has shareholders to report to. It's also the reason why the guy in charge of the team is more often referred to now as the "coach" rather than the manager - it more accurately reflects his role.
That said, MON was very old-fashioned and Randy made a point of saying he let MON run the club as he wanted to, so I suspect he may have had a major involvement in negotiating wages and new player contracts. I doubt GH has anywhere near as much involvement.
-
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.
Only a minor point but these accounts are up to 31 May 2010, not July. I can't see much would have happened in June or July to make a major difference.
-
Who would be responsible for negotiating the players' wages?
Is it the manager? CFO? someone else?
The modern approach for that kind of thing to let the CEO do the big deals - just like they would in any kind of £100m turnover business. Daniel Levy is the most high profile example of this at Spurs - he's more high profile because they're listed and he has shareholders to report to. It's also the reason why the guy in charge of the team is more often referred to now as the "coach" rather than the manager - it more accurately reflects his role.
That said, MON was very old-fashioned and Randy made a point of saying he let MON run the club as he wanted to, so I suspect he may have had a major involvement in negotiating wages and new player contracts. I doubt GH has anywhere near as much involvement.
The Spurs example is interesting (not interesting in a 'lets compare turnover/ wages/ image rights' stats-fest, but then what is?) in so far as they operated with a DOF for a number of years.
By all accounts that stopped when 'arry was appointed. But the re-signing of Keane and various other deals seem to have been done with Levy very much at the forefront. Perhaps 'arry has the veto if he outright says he doesn't want a player, but he genuinely seemed to be in the dark over their interest in Adam and the rake of other players they bid for on deadline day. Or perhaps he was just being enigmatic, the lovable scamp.
As for player wages for us and who would negotiate them, that would fall under the CEO's remit. But MON called the shots as far as player selection and they backed him to the point where if he targeted a player to sign and told them to 'do what it takes' to get the deal done, they would do so. Even if (by the looks of it now) they often grossly overpaid on the wages. They backed his judgement, his knowledge of football and believed that these players would obviously provide good value in the longrun.
If you could fault them for anything, it's not having someone with enough knowledge of the game in the boardroom to say "actually £40K for Luke Young and Habib Beye/£50 K for Steve Sidwell/ £60k+ for Heskey is too much. We can get better value elsewhere."
-
Is interesting that Randy decided to appoint a CEO (Faulkner) late March last year and the first rumour of MoN walking out (coincidently?) surfaced around that time too. I can see MoNs point of view that he will have felt undermined, but the accounts back Randy totally in reigning in the wage costs.
Loss: 37m, includes 12m on transfer activity (spent 30, clawed back 18 - actually better than I thought). Therefore, 25m unsustainable loss, almost same as the previous year.
Income breakdown:
24.3m matchday (including corporate packages)
14.4m commercial
52m media (tv)
Commercial should see a nice windfall from actually having a shirt sponsor now, but thats still ~20m overspend. This equates to 385k / week we'd need to shed off the wage bill or find from other sources to break even (nevermind start to repay the loan notes).
-
We truly are now between a rock and a hard place. After investing in a failed attempt to get into the Champions League, we can't sustain the current losses. So do we go further into debt and risk Doing A Leeds, or do we accept that we can't compete at the top level barring a phenomenally good round of transfer dealings and youth development?
-
As I've said elsewhere I'm not really that worried as i expect a successful businessman who has experience of running a football club, here and in the states, to have a valid business plan to deal with the debt in the short to medium term.
Undoubtedly the losses are not sustainable and we may have a season or two where we can ship out O'Neill's high earners and non starters and recoup some money back from those whilst using the younger players to fill in the gaps.
The team needs some shoring up especially at the back but with Beye and Warnock gone that would be roughly £80 000 of the wage bill. We would still be able to spend a decent amount in wages to an adequate replacement for less than that. That's what the worldwide market is there for, it may be slightly more risky than the homegrown market but as has been said we can't keep paying 40k or so to very average players.
I don't see it as the end of the road but the start of a new approach to our transfers.
-
Definitely an era of Douganomics beckoning, luckily every other club will have to behave the same with the new Uefa rules kicking in. 90m debt is scary, but when you consider that Bolton have roughly the same debt as do Sunderland, this seems "normal" for a prem club.
60% of revenue coming from TV will be the big story in the next 5 years, I can see internet streaming obliterating this income source just like downloads and spotify have decimated the record industry.
-
We truly are now between a rock and a hard place. After investing in a failed attempt to get into the Champions League, we can't sustain the current losses. So do we go further into debt and risk Doing A Leeds, or do we accept that we can't compete at the top level barring a phenomenally good round of transfer dealings and youth development?
Or do we appreciate that short of a Sheik turning up tomorrow, there's no quick fix and we build a sustainable club with the infrastructure to compete in the long term.
Lots of things go in to a successful club - Blues have none of them but won the league cup at the weekend!
The previous approach was unsustainable without Champions League money - we gambled and lost, but thankfully stopped it getting out of hand before it was too late. Now is the time to rebuild with a different philosophy, but it will take time and that's not something football fans tend to allow.
-
We truly are now between a rock and a hard place. After investing in a failed attempt to get into the Champions League, we can't sustain the current losses. So do we go further into debt and risk Doing A Leeds, or do we accept that we can't compete at the top level barring a phenomenally good round of transfer dealings and youth development?
Or do we appreciate that short of a Sheik turning up tomorrow, there's no quick fix and we build a sustainable club with the infrastructure to compete in the long term.
Lots of things go in to a successful club - Blues have none of them but won the league cup at the weekend!
The previous approach was unsustainable without Champions League money - we gambled and lost, but thankfully stopped it getting out of hand before it was too late. Now is the time to rebuild with a different philosophy, but it will take time and that's not something football fans tend to allow.
It's what I'm absolutely convinced is the club's strategy now, and behind everything from appointing Gerard onwards.
-
It's what I'm absolutely convinced is the club's strategy now, and behind everything from appointing Gerard onwards.
It's not necessarily a bad thing though.
-
It's what I'm absolutely convinced is the club's strategy now, and behind everything from appointing Gerard onwards.
It's not necessarily a bad thing though.
Au contraire, it's the only way a club like ours will ever get proper success.
-
I think the days of effectively buying two whole backlines in three years are (thankfully) long gone. How many of Davies, Luke, Young, Shorey, Cuellar, Warnock, Beye, Dunne and Collins are going to be longterm options for us? Who out of that lot could form part of the bedrock of our backline for years to come? That's the worst part about it all, so much waste.
Davies looked a good bet and should be closer to the type of deal we aim for in the future. It won't always work out (it didn't with him), but he did fit the profile at the time.
Luke Young is underrated and -when fit- is a solid, dependable 7/10 merchant. I like Carlos, but two successive managers haven't rated him enough to play him in his favoured position for any length of time. If he can't keep out either Collins or Dunne after some of the 'mares they've had this year, it might be time to say thanks and goodbye this summer. I'm pretty certain he isn't too happy at being constantly overlooked in favour of that pair either and might welcome a move.
The rest?
-
The results confirm exactly why Martin and Randy had their falling out. We are fortunate that we have an owner who is prepared to cover the losses and still find the money for Darren Bent.
However, this can't go on indefinitely. Unfortunately, we are not in a position where we can allow Ashley Young to let his contract run out and leave for nothing. In addition, we can't afford a new bumper contract to make him stay either.
The immediate future and success of our club is going to be down to the likes of Marc Albrighton, Ciaran Clarke, Barry Bannan and Nathan Baker and I honestly believe these kids are capable of great things.
But when Man United come knocking on the door with a £20 million offer, we've got to accept that the player will be off.
Sad but true.
-
This may have been said already but it is amazing to see such losses after such a successful season.
-
Ash will definitely be gone to the highest bidder come the season end and the likes of Heskey / Dunne will be out the door too
Sink or swim with what weve got + the kids
-
However, this can't go on indefinitely. Unfortunately, we are not in a position where we can allow Ashley Young to let his contract run out and leave for nothing. In addition, we can't afford a new bumper contract to make him stay either.
Disagree, I'd say the money has always been there to reward the best players at the club and it should be even less of an issue now with a number of high earners off the books.
It's the mental wages on players by no means assured of even making the first team that needed to stop, and it looks like it has.
-
I agree that we are finally doing something about the players on mental wages who arent even in the first team - long overdue.
However, theres still a load of deadwood to be shipped out who arent interested in moving because they know they will never earn as much elsewhere, which basically means having to give them a pay off to leave as Man City did with Stephen Ireland.
I would be made up if we kept hold of Ashley Young, especially if he can reproduce Saturdays form on a regular basis. I just think that by refusing to discuss a new contract until the Summer, he is putting the Club in a very difficult position.
We did this with Gareth Barry and ended up getting about £6 million less in 2009 than we would have got in 2008 (although he was tremendous in his last season). I wonder given the financial results if the Club are prepared to lose even more money on a prized asset.
-
88% of turnover on wages isn't good at all, I was well critical of Pompey when 90% of their turnover was going on wages and look where they ended up. Thankfully Randy won't just walk away like Gadymak did.
Obviously it's been done to death but when Spurs can get together a squad that gets 4th on 15m less than we have, you have to seriously ask questions of the previous manager which I would expect the media to start doing now. He left an ageing squad at Celtic remember on high wages.
I would expect a lot of the deadwood to go in the summer, Beye (please god), Warnock, Friedel, Luke Young just for starters, not even making the bench or 30 + and on high wages.
Some of those will need to be replaced, some like Beye won't, just promote Lichaj to reserve RB.
Someone like NRC, let him go as I'm confident Makoun and Delph can both display his energetic drive in midfield.
the most promising thing are the young lads have shown real promise this year, Clark and Albrighton have been two of our best players and Bannan and Baker have looked good in cameos.
Main thing now is to continue to look for cheaper players from abroad, Makoun cost less in fee and wages than Sidwell and keep promoting from within. This should keep us top half as despite this crap season, we're 1 point off it now with a good run in.
Obviously if we're to get back in and stay in the top 6 again will depend on how generous Randy is in underwriting more Darren Bent type deals.
-
A quick play with the calculator shows that a playing staff of 30 all equally on 50k p/w would generate that wage bill.
While I've no doubt its more complex than that, the figure is still appalling.
-
Does anyone with access to these accounts know what the cumulative debt (the total of assets less liabilities or shareholders funds) is?
-
Does anyone with access to these accounts know what the cumulative debt (the total of assets less liabilities or shareholders funds) is?
I've got them, but it's almost impossible to give you that figure. Assets are almost impossible to tally up, especially with "player amortisation". Added to the fact that I'm not an accountant, so everything is hidden in 5 different balance sheets (consolidated profit and loss, consolidated balance, company balance sheet, consolidated cash flow, reconciliation of net cash flow to movement in net debt) !!!
The final " reconciliation of net cash flow to movement in net debt" sheet, is probably the figure you're after which gives a net debt of £109.5m, but this is money owed - no account is taken for what we own (fixed and variable assets etc).
-
We'll be fine we own the serpentine land, the old asda and don't forget about stumps
-
and the media slated us for not giving o'neill more money...
wankers...
-
Doug ! ..........HELP!!
-
Obviously it's been done to death but when Spurs can get together a squad that gets 4th on 15m less than we have, you have to seriously ask questions of the previous manager which I would expect the media to start doing now. He left an ageing squad at Celtic remember on high wages.
(http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc45/snesfreak/Community/S02E16/troyface1.gif)
-
We'll be fine we own the serpentine land, the old asda and don't forget about stumps
Doug sold the Serpentine and the old Stumps is worth hardly anything.
-
How much did we get for the serpentine ? Did that money make it's way back into the club ?
-
How much did we get for the serpentine ? Did that money make it's way back into the club ?
#
About £8 million and of course it did.
-
Looks like doug sold that land at the right time, doubt you'd get anywhere near that now
-
Looks like doug sold that land at the right time, doubt you'd get anywhere near that now
It was a very good deal, especially considering we still use the car park.
-
How much did we get for the serpentine ? Did that money make it's way back into the club ?
The Serpentine sale was used as surety against buying Petrov before Lerner officially took over.
-
Looks like doug sold that land at the right time, doubt you'd get anywhere near that now
It was a very good deal, especially considering we still use the car park.
Any idea who bought the land? May not be clear if its an agent/developer who the. End user may be and timescale for redevelopment
-
Looks like doug sold that land at the right time, doubt you'd get anywhere near that now
It was a very good deal, especially considering we still use the car park.
Any idea who bought the land? May not be clear if its an agent/developer who the. End user may be and timescale for redevelopment
They can't build houses there, as the land is too close to the Expressway and there's legislation covering air quality.
-
and there's legislation covering air quality.
That might explain why they've never been able to extend St.Andrews.
-
Is the figure for the wages in that report just players or does it include everybody from Randy himself all the way down to the office cleaner?
-
Maybe last night's team was the first team we will have next season after a fire sale?
Downing. Young and Albrighton would probably get us £40m straight away
-
Looks like doug sold that land at the right time, doubt you'd get anywhere near that now
It was a very good deal, especially considering we still use the car park.
Any idea who bought the land? May not be clear if its an agent/developer who the. End user may be and timescale for redevelopment
It was some local community agency group, who I believe went out of business afterwards.
-
Maybe last night's team was the first team we will have next season after a fire sale?
Downing. Young and Albrighton would probably get us £40m straight away
We selling Bent aswell then?