The Accounts are out.

[oldhill_avfc]

I sometimes wonder if there's a (former) NTL employee still locked in a padded cell and shaking uncontrollably when the words "Aston Villla" are mentioned.

Probably in the cell next to one who shakes at the word Newcastle?  or Celtic even?

[TheEgo]

Ad@m - thanks for that summary.
It seems to me that one of the biggest issues we have is that our commercial revenue is stagnating.
Why, when the premier league appears to be a cash cow, are we unable to significantly increase our commercial income?

We seem far too reliant on TV money.   

Also the area Mr Faulkner gets most praise for. "He doesn't know much about football, but he's done wonders for the commercial side of things" really?

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Thanks, Adam.

I agree entirely about the accounts not being as good as I'd hoped or expected. The 86% of turnover on wages being the biggest shock. I really was expecting it to have fallen dramatically but I guess we were still paying huge wages to the 'unwanted' and have failed to bring in any fees for them. I'd also be concerned as to how we can increase our turnover other than through TV money.

I'd imagine we're still in for a few more tough years before we see better results.

[TheEgo]

I'm going to wait until Lerner sells up to judge how much he has or hasn't spent of his own money on villa. Could be masses, could be nothing ultimately.

[aj2k77]

Commercial income wont increase by much whilst we remain a desperately boring, uninspiring side to watch. No name players. Dull football. Hardly saleable is it.

[dave.woodhall]

Dave

I've already answered that.  I'm not trying to imply that Doug made any kind of altruistic investment.

But the fact is that both gave money (not necessarily cash at the time) by virtue of the change in value of their shares.

He didn't give cash at any time. He bought his shareholding from the Bendalls and from that moment on did not put one penny into the club, while at the same time taking out what became as a healthy five figure annual sum, later became six figures and ended up as tens of millions. Set against that the value of his shares, which were only publicly traded from 1997 onwards and were until then worth what the buyer was prepared to pay regardless of the company's value, is irrelevant.

I don't disagree, but that wasn't what you wanted me to justify. 

As I have said I'm not trying to defend Doug but just trying to be consistent in that both Lerner and Doug were doing essentially the same thing.

They both invested significant sums of the club's money.  Yes, Lerner was getting it from his own trust while Doug was getting it from NTL. 

If the Lerner's gamble had come off the loan would have been repaid and/or the equity of the business would have increased.   Ditto with Doug.  But as shareholders they were both on the hook in proportion to the value of their shares. 

How Doug came by his shares is an entirely different argument as was his salary as chief exec. but at the time of making the investment the shares had a real value which was at stake.

They're not doing the same thing. Randy invests his own money, Doug invested other people's while at the same time taking out many times his original stake.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:

-  '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.'  Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
-  the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
-  season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
-  'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
-  'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
-  Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
-  The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading.  This was financed by Randy.
-  Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money.  Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year.  Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year.  Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
-  Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
-  £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
-  Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k).  If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
-  No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
-  Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
-  Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
-  Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m).  These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
-  Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.

I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.

The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either.  My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions.  That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in.  The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.

Very interesting

Was there any mention of a strategy for the next 12 months?

[TheEgo]

Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:

-  '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.'  Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
-  the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
-  season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
-  'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
-  'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
-  Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
-  The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading.  This was financed by Randy.
-  Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money.  Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year.  Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year.  Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
-  Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
-  £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
-  Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k).  If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
-  No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
-  Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
-  Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
-  Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m).  These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
-  Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.

I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.

The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either.  My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions.  That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in.  The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.

Very interesting

Was there any mention of a strategy for the next 12 months?

Yes a "value driven approach to squad building" in other words cheap and very average, or young and hungry if your name is Lambert

[ADVILLAFAN]

Still can't get over the 2.2M paid to Spurzz for Jenas   

[pauliewalnuts]

I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.

I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?

At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.

At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.

They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.

Of course, investing "on behalf of the shareholders" is slightly different when the only shareholder is yourself.

Only in terms of the stakes being higher.

"Only"

[Chico Hamilton III]

Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:

-  '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.'  Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
-  the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
-  season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
-  'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
-  'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
-  Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
-  The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading.  This was financed by Randy.
-  Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money.  Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year.  Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year.  Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
-  Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
-  £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
-  Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k).  If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
-  No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
-  Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
-  Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
-  Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m).  These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
-  Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.

I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.

The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either.  My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions.  That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in.  The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.

Very interesting

Was there any mention of a strategy for the next 12 months?

Yes a "value driven approach to squad building" in other words cheap and very average, or young and hungry if your name is Lambert

Exciting times ahead then.

And we'll be Financial Fair Play-compliant as well, you say? you can keep your European Cups

[rob_bridge]

Still 80% + on wages. How on earth did it come to this?
These figures are worse than I thought.

The ironic thing that it is alledged MON walked out in part due to having to run a tighter ship. Yet Houllier & TSM were allowed to carry on the transfer and more pertiently wages splurge. Bent, Makoun, Given, CNZ, Hutton and save for Bent represent very poor / dire investments.

Under Lambert the transfer kitty has been fairly generous (40m+ with zero coming in though I suspect we have signed volume of quality due to the wage restraints.

I would like to compare our non TV income streams with Everton, Spuds, Newcastle over the last 5 years to see if we are punching our weight. Everton suffer fom having preactically zero corporate facilities.

[glasses]

MON keeps being mentioned. It is a long held belief of mine that whilst the players he purchased were his choices, and some of them poor choices (aging pro's generally with not much thought to development and potential sell on value), the contracts and transfer fees were never agreed by him. He told PF the players he wanted, and the agents liased with him.

I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.

That said in that set of accounts, how many are there that were signed under his stewardship? Dunne? Delph?

[Ads]

You cannot absolve any manager of transfer fees of contacts.

A manager will be given a budget, so when negotiations commence and he is informed that player A will cost £X from his transfer budget and £Y from his wage budget, he will give the go ahead to proceed or move onto another target.

[Ad@m]

I would like to compare our non TV income streams with Everton, Spuds, Newcastle over the last 5 years to see if we are punching our weight. Everton suffer fom having preactically zero corporate facilities.

Everton (FY13) - Gate receipts £17.4m, Broadcasting £55.7m, Sponsorship, advertising and merchandising £7.6m, Catering £1.2m, Other commercial activities £4.4m, Total £86.4m

Wages £63m; Wage:Turnover ratio = 73%

Spurs (FY12) - Premier League gate receipts £21.4m, Cup competitions gate receipts and domestic prize money £6.2m, UEFA solidarity and prize money - £4.3m, Sponsorship and corporate hospitality £35.1m, Media and broadcasting £59.2m, Merchandising £9.2m, Other £8.6m, Total £144m.

Wages £90m; Wage:Turnover ratio = 63%

Newcastle (FY12) - Matchday £23.9m, Media £55.6m, Commercial £13.8m, Total £93m

Wages £64m; Wage:Turnover ratio = 69%

The comparisons don't look great...