The Accounts are out.

[oldhill_avfc]

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.

It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.

they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding

[dave.woodhall]

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.

It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.

they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding

Really? What money of his own did Doug ever give, and when?

[Ad@m]

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.

[Ad@m]

Interestingly, Doug made himself the first Chief Exec of a football club to be paid a salary and by the time he sold up to Randy in 2006 his salary was almost £300k of the club's, no, the fan's money.

Almost 10 years later, the current Chief Exec gets £50k less than that.

[oldhill_avfc]

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.

It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.

they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding

Really? What money of his own did Doug ever give, and when?

The use of funds affects the value of a business in terms of the profit (or loss) accruing from the use of those funds.

Shareholders gain or lose in proportion to their shareholding.

[dave.woodhall]

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.

It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.

they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding

Really? What money of his own did Doug ever give, and when?

The use of funds affects the value of a business in terms of the profit (or loss) accruing from the use of those funds.

Shareholders gain or lose in proportion to their shareholding.

Could you answer the question please? What money of his own did Doug Ellis ever invest in Aston Villa?

[oldhill_avfc]

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.

[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.

[aj2k77]

Hmmmm since then weve removed

Ireland
Bannan
Bent - on loan
lichaj
makoun
dunne
marshall
Holman
given - on loan


So possibly with the players we've added we may have knocked £10m off the wage bill since then.

Still don't expect us to recover until we can get Hutton, Given, Nzogbia, Bent and delfouneso off the bill. Probably another £10m there on players that add nothing.

[oldhill_avfc]

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.

[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.

[LeeB]

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.

I've got three letters for you:

NTL

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[andyh]

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.   

[oldhill_avfc]

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.