Aston Villa still made a loss - but a much improved one - in latest set of financial accounts
Loss has gone from £51.8m to £3.9m in the year ending May 2014
16:11, 24 February 2015
By Mat Kendrick
Aston Villa's latest accounts show that they made a loss of £3.9 million in the year ending May 2014.
It is a £47.9m improvement on the previous year when they posted losses of £51.8 million.
According to a statement on the club's official website, the reduction was due in part to a £33.2m increase in turnover to £116.9m.
There was also a £12.9m reduction in operating expenses to £121.7m, which resulted in an operating loss of £4.8m compared to £50.9m for the previous year.
A new broadcasting deal accounted for much of the increased turnover, although a boost in Villa's commercial and sponsorship revenues also played a part.
The club reports that the accounts also reflect the December 2013 conversion of £90.1m of loan notes into called up share capital.
The consolidated balance sheet at May 31, 2014 shows net assets of £2.1m compared to net liabilities of £84.2m at May 31, 2013.
Robin Russell, chief financial officer, said: "We are very pleased to be able to report improved results after a period of heavy financial losses.
"By controlling costs we have been able to take advantage of the new Premier League broadcasting deal to bring the club closer to self-sufficiency.
"Compliance with Financial Fair Play continues to be a key component of our planning and we remain focused on growing the club in a responsible and sustainable way."
Brilliant news. We've finally managed to balance the books at the probable expense of our Premier league status.
Well Done all.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
Wwe may have needed to do it but not at the speed in which it has been done. look at the league table.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
Yes it was quick. The size of the debt meant something had to be done as wage to turnover was running at something crazy like 86%. But after Bent was bought to save the season our transfer policy was clearly cheap and young. It was always going to be risky and Lambert looked like he had a handle on it early in his reign. Anyway, that team needed experience added to it - and I don't just mean a 35 year-old but good proven players that would cost in the region of £40k per week. We were never looking there and so inevitably we get to where we are now.
Yes it was quick. The size of the debt meant something had to be done as wage to turnover was running at something crazy like 86%. But after Bent was bought to save the season our transfer policy was clearly cheap and young. It was always going to be risky and Lambert looked like he had a handle on it early in his reign. Anyway, that team needed experience added to it - and I don't just mean a 35 year-old but good proven players that would cost in the region of £40k per week. We were never looking there and so inevitably we get to where we are now.
Cheap and young, N'zogbia? Given?
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
What he should have done is realizing the accounts were headed in the right direction spent much more this January to insure our survival. That doesn't mean 50million losses a year, it means appropriate spending last month when it was absolutely clear we would be at terrible risk of relegation unless we spent.
I am almost tempted to believe Lerner deliberately waited until after the window was closed to fire lambert so he wouldn't have to face the obvious questions about players needed to stay up from the new manager.
He has chosen to roll the dice yet again with us staying up without decent spending in January. I think his and our luck has run out. He made a bad decision and I blame him for it.
Lerner set the tone I'm afraid.
You cannot run a club from the other side of the Atlantic.
Lerner set the tone I'm afraid.
You cannot run a club from the other side of the Atlantic.
Like the Glazers don't?
Lerner set the tone I'm afraid.
You cannot run a club from the other side of the Atlantic.
Like the Glazers don't?
Joe Lewis is totally hands on at Tottenham as well isn't he.
You cannot compare us to them or Liverpool , they are global giants with well established boards , DoF's etc etc . Spurs are lucky they have such a brilliant CEO as Daniel Levy.Lerner set the tone I'm afraid.
You cannot run a club from the other side of the Atlantic.
Like the Glazers don't?
You cannot compare us to them or Liverpool , they are global giants with well established boards , DoF's etc etc . Spurs are lucky they have such a brilliant CEO as Daniel Levy.Lerner set the tone I'm afraid.
You cannot run a club from the other side of the Atlantic.
Like the Glazers don't?
Btw I'm pretty sure the glazers and the pool owners attend far more than Lerner does .
But we don't . Therein lieth the problem.Which is completely different to what you have been saying.
Not really. Lerner cannot run this club remotely. It worked when he was over here and involved and living out beyond coleshill and attending games . It set the tone and the vibrant culture at the club during the MON halcyon era.But we don't . Therein lieth the problem.Which is completely different to what you have been saying.
Not really. Lerner cannot run this club remotely. It worked when he was over here and involved and living out beyond coleshill and attending games . It set the tone and the vibrant culture at the club during the MON halcyon era.But we don't . Therein lieth the problem.Which is completely different to what you have been saying.
Ever since he's retreated further and further it's been a steady decline.
You do realise that the losses built up during the time it was "working" while he was attending more often is the main reason we're in the mess we're in now? So no, it didn't really work when he was over here either.Not really. Lerner cannot run this club remotely. It worked when he was over here and involved and living out beyond coleshill and attending games . It set the tone and the vibrant culture at the club during the MON halcyon era.But we don't . Therein lieth the problem.Which is completely different to what you have been saying.
Ever since he's retreated further and further it's been a steady decline.
Not really. Lerner cannot run this club remotely. It worked when he was over here and involved and living out beyond coleshill and attending games . It set the tone and the vibrant culture at the club during the MON halcyon era.But we don't . Therein lieth the problem.Which is completely different to what you have been saying.
Ever since he's retreated further and further it's been a steady decline.
Tom Fox from what I've heard is a good commercial man but in terms of his football knowledge ?
Tom Fox from what I've heard is a good commercial man but in terms of his football knowledge ?He could be the greatest commercial guru ever to walk the earth.
Brum Mail (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-still-made-loss-8711554)I am soooooo pleased.QuoteAston Villa still made a loss - but a much improved one - in latest set of financial accounts
Tom Fox from what I've heard is a good commercial man but in terms of his football knowledge ?
If he appoints the right people around him, it doesn't matter does it?
Well it has been five years worth of torture, but when you see that shiny new balance sheet in the trophy cabinet it makes it all worthwhile.
They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
Who do you think was less qualified from before World War I?They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Fox is a step down and will see us go down.
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
Tony Barton & Ron Saunders at a guessWho do you think was less qualified from before World War I?They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Fox is a step down and will see us go down.
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
In it's own way this is good new. In essence, Phase 1 of the process is complete.
Assuming we stay up, I'm struggling to see how Phase 2 will work. The players leaving this summer will free up some cash but its hardly enough to launch any ambitious transfer/wage plans as any increase in TV money will be the same with all PL clubs (unless shopping exclusively in Europe).
I'm struggling to identify a USP which Villa can exploit to enable us to start moving up the table in a sustainable manner. Ideas?
In it's own way this is good new. In essence, Phase 1 of the process is complete.
Assuming we stay up, I'm struggling to see how Phase 2 will work. The players leaving this summer will free up some cash but its hardly enough to launch any ambitious transfer/wage plans as any increase in TV money will be the same with all PL clubs (unless shopping exclusively in Europe).
I'm struggling to identify a USP which Villa can exploit to enable us to start moving up the table in a sustainable manner. Ideas?
All of which shows that it doesn't matter where the board meetings are held or the owner spends matchday as long as they right people are in charge and the proper strategy implemented. Which is Randy's biggest failing.
Blimey I must live in a different world as SV I don't understand your response to Dave's comment?Tony Barton & Ron Saunders at a guessWho do you think was less qualified from before World War I?They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Fox is a step down and will see us go down.
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
Sadly we live in a different era
OCD I agree with you. The executive at VP had two pressing priorities following the wanton profligacy of the MON era. One was to reduce costs the other was to stay on the Premiership gravy train. All the energies appear to have been directed towards economy and far too little to sustained growth. If the board feels like giving themselves a standing ovation they should reflect on why nobody wants to buy us. The next two or three games with tell us if we are going to be the new Southampton or the new Nottingham Forest.
Blimey I must live in a different world as SV I don't understand your response to Dave's comment?Tony Barton & Ron Saunders at a guessWho do you think was less qualified from before World War I?They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Fox is a step down and will see us go down.
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
Sadly we live in a different era
They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Fox is a step down and will see us go down.
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
I'm not having a go at Sherwood though. It's not his fault he got the job, in some ways I admire him for taking it on.They don't learn though do they, after spunking money away on Given,Bent and numerous others they then grant Gabby a lifetime pension over four years, Fox did that.Exactly . And people diss Faulkner .
Fox is a step down and will see us go down.
Appointing Sherwood is just surreal ! The most unqualified manager ever of this club since WWI
You said only yesterday that you wasn't having a go at Sherwood. Today you're having a go at Sherwood. And what;s all this WW1 piffle?
I'm sure you just make things up sometimes off the top of your head.
The contract extension for Lambert pushed that very close in my opinion.
The contract extension for Lambert pushed that very close in my opinion.
Same here. Barely a month into his job and Fox costs the club millions by offering a contract extension to the worst manager we've seen at Villa for a generation. It's not as if other clubs were beating a path to Lambert's door to sign him up so why on earth did we do it. I'm still scratching my head over that decision. Maybe it's the false narrative I'm reading
The contract extension for Lambert pushed that very close in my opinion.
Same here. Barely a month into his job and Fox costs the club millions by offering a contract extension to the worst manager we've seen at Villa for a generation. It's not as if other clubs were beating a path to Lambert's door to sign him up so why on earth did we do it. I'm still scratching my head over that decision. Maybe it's the false narrative I'm reading
Maybe Fox was following your employer's motto? Empowering performance through something or another. It sounded impressive in the pub before QPR
The contract extension for Lambert pushed that very close in my opinion.
Same here. Barely a month into his job and Fox costs the club millions by offering a contract extension to the worst manager we've seen at Villa for a generation. It's not as if other clubs were beating a path to Lambert's door to sign him up so why on earth did we do it. I'm still scratching my head over that decision. Maybe it's the false narrative I'm reading
The contract extension for Lambert pushed that very close in my opinion.
Same here. Barely a month into his job and Fox costs the club millions by offering a contract extension to the worst manager we've seen at Villa for a generation. It's not as if other clubs were beating a path to Lambert's door to sign him up so why on earth did we do it. I'm still scratching my head over that decision. Maybe it's the false narrative I'm reading
We paid up a year of his contract. So it doesn't matter if it was a 10 year new contract or a 12 month one.
So we're agreed then, it didn't cost us millions.
The contract extension for Lambert pushed that very close in my opinion.
We'd have paid a chunk regardless of the new contract. So no, the new contract didn't cost us millions.
We'd have paid a chunk regardless of the new contract. So no, the new contract didn't cost us millions.
I think it probably cost us the option/ability to get rid of him sooner which may prove to be more damaging than the money.
We'd have paid a chunk regardless of the new contract. So no, the new contract didn't cost us millions.
I think it probably cost us the option/ability to get rid of him sooner which may prove to be more damaging than the money.
To the cleverer finance people than me. Random questions. Are we capable of dealing with relegation? Would it ruin us? Anyone know of relegation clauses in contracts? Thanks in advance.With the huge year 1 parachute payment , if we came straight back it wouldn't be terminal damage. Although the big names like benteke and Delph etc will have release clauses I'm sure
The damage done under MON was monumental.
Curtis Davies being a prime example , bought for £10m and walked away for £250k
The damage done under MON was monumental.
Curtis Davies being a prime example , bought for £10m and walked away for £250k
£3.5m.
It was no coincidence that as soon as we dropped into the bottom 3 he was given the boot. There must have been a clause stating if it happened they could get rid at little cost.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
Wwe may have needed to do it but not at the speed in which it has been done. look at the league table.
Was it that quick though? If we'd spent as much as we have but spent it well and, over the 3 managers, following a single plan, would we have suffered so much?
This is the point, everything from the end of mon's last season has been bad management but it has been underfunded to the extent that many suggest.
What else do people expect though? Should Lerner have just carried on writing off £50m a year to please you?
We had to do this, how bad things have been is more down to the fact that the people trusted to oversee it have been poor and there's been little by way of underlying philosophy behind it. If you want to bitch about Lerner focus on the lack of footballing experience on the board or the choice of managers, moaning that he didn't want to carry on underwriting losses of £50m a year is plain wrong.
In terms of the actual accounts this ties in perfectly with What Russell said last year which was that we were pretty much on track now.
Wwe may have needed to do it but not at the speed in which it has been done. look at the league table.
Was it that quick though? If we'd spent as much as we have but spent it well and, over the 3 managers, following a single plan, would we have suffered so much?
This is the point, everything from the end of mon's last season has been bad management but it has been underfunded to the extent that many suggest.
The bad management started with MON appointment - it was he, let we forget, who triggered most of the financial debt we had to then excrutiatingly untangle
Cut the losses, great.. hope it was worth it.
Landmark case going to the courts which would scupper Financial Fair Play rules. So we break our necks to comply with rules that may not be enforceable at an unbelievable speed, and get relegated in the process.
Our board are visionaries I tell you, visionaries.
I'm just saying sometimes you need to look at the WIDER picture. Sure trim the costs, reduce the overheads. Not slash them.
What I do not understand is how it was allowed to get to £40 million losses per year in the name of getting into the Champions League? Even if we had progressed I do not think it would cover that annual deficit ?
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -
The 32 clubs featuring in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m. The side that eventually wins the UEFA Champions League title this term could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.
Each of the 32 teams involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to receive €3.5m each, the eight quarter-finalists €3.9m and the four semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will pick up €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.
Cut the losses, great.. hope it was worth it.
Well it ensures you'll still have a club to support in the future.
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -
The 32 clubs featuring in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m. The side that eventually wins the UEFA Champions League title this term could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.
Each of the 32 teams involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to receive €3.5m each, the eight quarter-finalists €3.9m and the four semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will pick up €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.
which makes it even worse !
To the cleverer finance people than me. Random questions. Are we capable of dealing with relegation? Would it ruin us? Anyone know of relegation clauses in contracts? Thanks in advance.With the huge year 1 parachute payment , if we came straight back it wouldn't be terminal damage. Although the big names like benteke and Delph etc will have release clauses I'm sure
To the cleverer finance people than me. Random questions. Are we capable of dealing with relegation? Would it ruin us? Anyone know of relegation clauses in contracts? Thanks in advance.With the huge year 1 parachute payment , if we came straight back it wouldn't be terminal damage. Although the big names like benteke and Delph etc will have release clauses I'm sure
Is it only 1 yr? I thought blues got about 2/3 yrs of payments. Hence why they're in trouble now
To the cleverer finance people than me. Random questions. Are we capable of dealing with relegation? Would it ruin us? Anyone know of relegation clauses in contracts? Thanks in advance.With the huge year 1 parachute payment , if we came straight back it wouldn't be terminal damage. Although the big names like benteke and Delph etc will have release clauses I'm sure
Is it only 1 yr? I thought blues got about 2/3 yrs of payments. Hence why they're in trouble now
Or maybe it's higher than my number as there may have been another TV deal since then (not the new one recently announced) so assume the parachute payments went up.
If a club gets relegated and during the first couple of years a new TV deal comes into play, I wonder if the parachute payments stay the same for the club/s already relegated. As in, do they still only get the old deal payments for their 4 years or do they get the new ones, even if they've already been down for 2 years?My guess would be the former. They'd be written in as fixed sums so that the clubs can plan for those years accordingly rather than having to second-guess what they might get (higher or lower) when a new TV deal comes in.
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -
The 32 clubs featuring in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m. The side that eventually wins the UEFA Champions League title this term could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.
Each of the 32 teams involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to receive €3.5m each, the eight quarter-finalists €3.9m and the four semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will pick up €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.
which makes it even worse !
21/32 clubs earned over £20m in 2012/13 in the Champions league, that's not including any extra gate revenues, matchday sponsorship and other matchday income, plus the extra exposure. It's worth a lot more than the post below because the market pool share is some big money.
Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -
The 32 clubs featuring in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m. The side that eventually wins the UEFA Champions League title this term could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.
Each of the 32 teams involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to receive €3.5m each, the eight quarter-finalists €3.9m and the four semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will pick up €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.
Sooner or later a "big" club will go under, I'd rather it isn't us.
Think so yes. Uefa control the TV money not the clubs individually .Isn't a champions league place (in the groups) worth about £50m, I'm sure that's the figure (or near enough) that was going around when it became clear Man U weren't going to qualify last year.Not even close -
The 32 clubs featuring in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m. The side that eventually wins the UEFA Champions League title this term could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.
Each of the 32 teams involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The sides competing in the round of 16 can also expect to receive €3.5m each, the eight quarter-finalists €3.9m and the four semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will pick up €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.
Do those numbers include the TV money? I suspect not.
Newcastle United are set to announce record profits for the past financial year, despite continuing to languish among the Premier League also-rans. The club are expected to confirm they made more money than most clubs playing in the Champions League when they release their latest set of results, with sources indicating they could have made as much as £50 million. However, there are conflicting figures being banded around at the club, with one prominent figure insisting the profit was nearer to £30 million. The Daily Telegraph’s attempts to clarify the exact figure have been frustrated, although it has been confirmed a “significant profit” will be announced next week. To put things into perspective, Arsenal, who won the FA Cup, reached the knockout stage of the Champions League and finished fourth in the Premier League last season, six places higher than Newcastle, made a profit of roughly £11 million. It will be the fourth year in a row that Newcastle have announced an operating profit and it seems certain that the figures will be an improvement on those announced in 2012 when they made a profit of £13.3 million, numbers boosted by the £35 million sale of Andy Carroll to Liverpool. The impressive financial figures will be used to justify owner Mike Ashley’s continued presence at St James’ Park. Ashley inherited a club crippled by debt and covered losses of £140 million during his first three years at St James’ Park, although the majority of those were interest-free loans needed during their solitary season in the Championship.
The disastrous relegation at the end of the 2008/9 season began with Kevin Keegan’s resignation following a falling out over the club’s transfer policy and was made worse by Ashley’s subsequent appointment of Joe Kinnear as manager and the owner’s repeated attempts to sell the club.
Ashley, though, has transformed the business and while he has not presided over any success on the pitch, he deserves credit for the impact he has made on the club’s accounts.
Supporters, though, are unlikely to be impressed and there will be increased pressure to reinvest the profits in the first-team squad when the transfer window opens in the summer.
It remains to be seen whether Ashley is willing to do that, or whether he has used the profits to repay some of the money owed to him in the form of interest free loans.
Although Ashley has had great success in streamlining the business, cutting costs, as well as buying players cheaply and selling them on for a large profit, Newcastle have only finished in the top eight once since he took control of the club in 2007.
Newcastle have been short of competition for places in both defence and attack all season after failing to sign a top class centre-back and centre-forward last summer.
Indeed, most supporters are unhappy that the club seems more interested in performing well in the accounts department than delivering a team that is capable of challenging for silverware and European qualification.
...
Yes, you're right about the exceptional costs, misread my own scribbles. Would the directors' remuneration not cover Faulkner and Russell, rather than Lerner and Faulkner? Minor points in any case.
Did you see the PBSE note though? It says that the net cost of additions of new players after the 31 May 2014 was only £0.1m. This can't be right, surely? I know Lambert mainly brought in free transfers, but surely Sanchez and Gil were a few million each?
Yes, you're right about the exceptional costs, misread my own scribbles. Would the directors' remuneration not cover Faulkner and Russell, rather than Lerner and Faulkner? Minor points in any case.
Did you see the PBSE note though? It says that the net cost of additions of new players after the 31 May 2014 was only £0.1m. This can't be right, surely? I know Lambert mainly brought in free transfers, but surely Sanchez and Gil were a few million each?
You're right, need to include Russell. Not sure if Randy pays himself a salary.
As for PBSE, the accounts were signed off on 17 July - we didn't sign Sanchez until August and Gil until January so they wouldn't be included.
The change of owner clause will cover directors and senior management. I'd guess it's standard in business.
Beyond relegation, the next challenge is making sure the new contracts given to the likes of Delph don't result in massive wage increases which put us back in to the position we were in before.
The change of owner clause will cover directors and senior management. I'd guess it's standard in business.
It's the first time I've come across it in over 15 years of working with businesses. But who knows what's normal in the unique world of Premier League football!
The change of owner clause will cover directors and senior management. I'd guess it's standard in business.
It's the first time I've come across it in over 15 years of working with businesses. But who knows what's normal in the unique world of Premier League football!
They are more common in the tech business although usually its an accelerated vesting of shares in that case rather than cash.
The people with those clauses are ones who may either not make the transition to new ownership or people you want to give an incentive to make a change happen.
Looking at those numbers, the impact that a good commercial operation can have is frankly almost meaningless compared to TV revenues
The increased deal must trigger a number of things. I'm still not sure we're an attractive purchasing proposition though. where do you take us? Eighth? What's the point?