It's that time of year again!

[Concrete John]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seem to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

I think one feeds the other.  Lower wages = worse team and worse team = less turnover.

But our biggest issue is we're still paying the sort of overall wages that should be sufficient to be competitive in the PL, however it's going to the wrong players.  If you take the combined wages of Hutton, Warnock, Dunne, Ireland and Bent and paid them to players actually contributing, we'd be in a better position financially as turnover would be up, despite the wages being unmoved. 

[Risso]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seems to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

Precisely Greg. 

The worrying thing now is that we're still making big losses that can only be partially offset by selling players, and we're fast running out of the sort of players who can make a big dent in the sort of numbers we're talking about.  If we stay up we'll probably be OK, but if we go down we'll HAVE to sell the likes of Benteke and Weimann.

[Greg N'Ash]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seem to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

I think one feeds the other.  Lower wages = worse team and worse team = less turnover.

But our biggest issue is we're still paying the sort of overall wages that should be sufficient to be competitive in the PL, however it's going to the wrong players.  If you take the combined wages of Hutton, Warnock, Dunne, Ireland and Bent and paid them to players actually contributing, we'd be in a better position financially as turnover would be up, despite the wages being unmoved. 

I agree but its not going to help us for the next accounts. No doubt turnover will have dived again and only the likes of Ivanhoe, Collins etc off the wages bill and then all the new signings. It will be the accounts after that where we really see where we are, but even they could be awful if we go down.

[itbrvilla]

Can't see us ever breaking even the way things are going, even if we get the wages bill down further. Thing is its probably risen from 70m since those accounts.

Yeah, after Risso's analysis it really looks like we'll be fucked if we go down and can't get back up. Business Men my arse.

[Greg N'Ash]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seems to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

Precisely Greg. 

The worrying thing now is that we're still making big losses that can only be partially offset by selling players, and we're fast running out of the sort of players who can make a big dent in the sort of numbers we're talking about.  If we stay up we'll probably be OK, but if we go down we'll HAVE to sell the likes of Benteke and Weimann.

yep, its pretty bleak really.. Faulkner should fall on his sword for allowing this to happen. He won't obv.

[Concrete John]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seems to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

Precisely Greg. 

The worrying thing now is that we're still making big losses that can only be partially offset by selling players, and we're fast running out of the sort of players who can make a big dent in the sort of numbers we're talking about.  If we stay up we'll probably be OK, but if we go down we'll HAVE to sell the likes of Benteke and Weimann.

yep, its pretty bleak really.. Faulkner should fall on his sword for allowing this to happen. He won't obv.

Yet these sort of losses simply can't be turned around when you're operating at a wages/turnover ratio of 86.6%.  And when the club have tried to address this, they've recieved criticism.

[myf]

Anyway:

Turnover down to £80.3m from £92m.

Operating expenses down to £138m from £159m.

This gives an operating loss of £58m compared to £66m last year.

Profit from player sales was £27m compared to £19m last year.

Lerner then wrote off £20.5m, including £6m charged this year, giving a net movment of £14m.

This takes us down to a loss of £17.7m compared to £54m last year.  Obviously though, he won't be able to write off the accumulated interest every year, and that operating loss of £58m is still huge and very worrying.

The overall deficit in the accounts has risen from £20m to £32m.

All elements of turnover in the year decreased. matchday was down from £21.5m to £19.9m, TV down from £53.8m to £46.7m, and commercial down from £16.7m to £13.7m.  Wages decreased from £83m to £70m.  The percentage of wages to turnover has therefore decreased from 90.6% to 86.6%.

Why does this say turnover of £64m?

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/439803-huge-fall-in-turnover-announced-by-aston-villa.html

[Risso]

Anyway:

Turnover down to £80.3m from £92m.

Operating expenses down to £138m from £159m.

This gives an operating loss of £58m compared to £66m last year.

Profit from player sales was £27m compared to £19m last year.

Lerner then wrote off £20.5m, including £6m charged this year, giving a net movment of £14m.

This takes us down to a loss of £17.7m compared to £54m last year.  Obviously though, he won't be able to write off the accumulated interest every year, and that operating loss of £58m is still huge and very worrying.

The overall deficit in the accounts has risen from £20m to £32m.

All elements of turnover in the year decreased. matchday was down from £21.5m to £19.9m, TV down from £53.8m to £46.7m, and commercial down from £16.7m to £13.7m.  Wages decreased from £83m to £70m.  The percentage of wages to turnover has therefore decreased from 90.6% to 86.6%.

Why does this say turnover of £64m?

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/439803-huge-fall-in-turnover-announced-by-aston-villa.html

I expect that's one of the underlying companies that gets consolidated into Reform Acquisitions Limited, ie Aston Villa Football Club Limited, Aston Villa Limited or Aston Villa FC Limited.  The various activities are split and then merged into the Parent company, RAL.
 
edit:  I was right, that turnover is for Aston Villa FC Limited which effectively owns the players.  The turnover is a group recharge and seems to be essentially meaningless by itself.

[Greg N'Ash]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seems to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

Precisely Greg. 

The worrying thing now is that we're still making big losses that can only be partially offset by selling players, and we're fast running out of the sort of players who can make a big dent in the sort of numbers we're talking about.  If we stay up we'll probably be OK, but if we go down we'll HAVE to sell the likes of Benteke and Weimann.

yep, its pretty bleak really.. Faulkner should fall on his sword for allowing this to happen. He won't obv.

Yet these sort of losses simply can't be turned around when you're operating at a wages/turnover ratio of 86.6%.  And when the club have tried to address this, they've recieved criticism.

well that's true but people on here were complaining (and i was one of them) about the massive squad who didn't play under MON. We were bullshitted with stuff like "there's no budget", and then we find out not only was there a budget, but they totally ignored it.. If MON had only bought the players he actually used ,then the last 3 years wouldn't have been a headlong downwards plunge but a more structered gradual  cost cutting exercise with the youth players replacing the reserves instead of being flung in the deep-end. Personally i think someone should take responsibility for the complete pigs ear they've made of it

[fredm]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seem to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

I think one feeds the other.  Lower wages = worse team and worse team = less turnover.

But our biggest issue is we're still paying the sort of overall wages that should be sufficient to be competitive in the PL, however it's going to the wrong players.  If you take the combined wages of Hutton, Warnock, Dunne, Ireland and Bent and paid them to players actually contributing, we'd be in a better position financially as turnover would be up, despite the wages being unmoved. 

And who wanted these players to be brought into the club?  And who at the club questioned a) are they the correct player that we need; and b) is the deal that they are asking for/we are giving too high?

It all goes back to when MON was appointed and they just let him get on with it.  There was no pathway laid down re the way forward for the club, we just lurched from day to day. The appointment of the various managers since (as has been done to death on here) shows there is no logic or forethought gone into how the club should progress over a long term basis.  Until, that is, when the s**t hit the fan and RL woke up to what the position really was and he put the brakes on so hard we have come to a virtual full stop which, in all probability, will end up with us falling off the cliff edge of the Premier League which will only serve to exacerbate the problem a thousand times.

[Walmley_Villa]

Looks like we are trying to turn around the Titanic....

We complain about no football people involved but it seems that the 'business' people we have onboard are not particularly good at running a business. Relegation could cause chaos.

I expect the Chief Executive to fall on his sword..............as if.

[Concrete John]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seem to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

I think one feeds the other.  Lower wages = worse team and worse team = less turnover.

But our biggest issue is we're still paying the sort of overall wages that should be sufficient to be competitive in the PL, however it's going to the wrong players.  If you take the combined wages of Hutton, Warnock, Dunne, Ireland and Bent and paid them to players actually contributing, we'd be in a better position financially as turnover would be up, despite the wages being unmoved. 

And who wanted these players to be brought into the club?  And who at the club questioned a) are they the correct player that we need; and b) is the deal that they are asking for/we are giving too high?

It all goes back to when MON was appointed and they just let him get on with it.  There was no pathway laid down re the way forward for the club, we just lurched from day to day. The appointment of the various managers since (as has been done to death on here) shows there is no logic or forethought gone into how the club should progress over a long term basis.  Until, that is, when the s**t hit the fan and RL woke up to what the position really was and he put the brakes on so hard we have come to a virtual full stop which, in all probability, will end up with us falling off the cliff edge of the Premier League which will only serve to exacerbate the problem a thousand times.

I think it goes back to when he was sacked.  Our high league position and subsequent turnover hid/compensated for the fact that we were wasting a lot of money on players not getting a look in.  The sudden shift from MON to Houllier and then Houllier to TSM increased that wastage, due to the vast changes in style, as players who were playing and 'earning' their wages then being on the outside looking in.

That leads us to now, where we're still trying to shake the wastage of the last 2-3 years, so can only afford to look for players on less than average wages until the whole lot are cycled out of the club.     

[Greg N'Ash]

Thing is the drop in the wage bill seem to be swallowed up by the drop in turnover. Ever decreasing circles.

I think one feeds the other.  Lower wages = worse team and worse team = less turnover.

But our biggest issue is we're still paying the sort of overall wages that should be sufficient to be competitive in the PL, however it's going to the wrong players.  If you take the combined wages of Hutton, Warnock, Dunne, Ireland and Bent and paid them to players actually contributing, we'd be in a better position financially as turnover would be up, despite the wages being unmoved. 

And who wanted these players to be brought into the club?  And who at the club questioned a) are they the correct player that we need; and b) is the deal that they are asking for/we are giving too high?

It all goes back to when MON was appointed and they just let him get on with it.  There was no pathway laid down re the way forward for the club, we just lurched from day to day. The appointment of the various managers since (as has been done to death on here) shows there is no logic or forethought gone into how the club should progress over a long term basis.  Until, that is, when the s**t hit the fan and RL woke up to what the position really was and he put the brakes on so hard we have come to a virtual full stop which, in all probability, will end up with us falling off the cliff edge of the Premier League which will only serve to exacerbate the problem a thousand times.

Aye. You just have to look at MON's signings. Out of the 28 or so, a good 11 or 12 would have had little or no effect on where the team finished if they'd never been bought.  What that equates to in wages and transfer fee's i'm not sure but its not peanuts.

[fredm]

But it is not just about MON it is how the club has been run virtually from day 1 of the RL era. There has been no long term (or even medium term) plans put in place as to how the teams will play, what style of manager etc. Just look at Swansea and see how they have formulated a plan and worked it through even to the extent that the chairman has said if Laudrup is tempted to move on they have plans laid down in relation to his successor. (and there is another club not a million miles away who also appear to be run very efficiently!)
Do you think that they even considered MON would leave at some point? And did they consider that Houlliers health might mean he would not be staying? It just beggars belief, IMO.

[rob_bridge]

This gives an operating loss of £58m compared to £66m last year.

============

If we get relegated we are absolutely fupped financially - completely and utterly.

How did it ever come to this?