FFP

[cdbearsfan]

I'd imagine we will sell as few players as we can get away with, to keep us just under the legal limits, same as we did last year.

[Stu]

I'd imagine we will sell as few players as we can get away with, to keep us just under the legal limits, same as we did last year.

I'm a pessimist, cd!

[Tuscans]

One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.

252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.

If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.

Hi it may well do but let's say the club have 200 employees on an average of 50k each that's still only 10 million. Perhaps double that for a few execs you still get less than 10% on non-player salaries.

I suppose it's all guess work. I imagine the gaffer, Monchi and Damian took 10 million last year alone.

[paul_e]

One thing in these figures I can't get my head round. Player wages for the 2023/24 season of £252 million. So we have a first team squad of 25 players plus maybe 5 out on loan. 30 players total, forget youth players they get peanuts.

252 million divided by 30 is an AVERAGE wage of £8.4 million a year or just over £160k a week. Is that right??? When you hear Rogers is on £75k a week ive always assumed that's Gross or is it his wages after tax? If the latter then Jesus Christ.

If I'm right I believe wages under operating expenses would cover every employee working at the club, not just playing staff.

Hi it may well do but let's say the club have 200 employees on an average of 50k each that's still only 10 million. Perhaps double that for a few execs you still get less than 10% on non-player salaries.

I've thought the same, the only explanation I can come up with is that we've paid out a lot in bonuses based on finishing top 4.

[eamonn]

The Times reporting we're trying to emulate Chelsea and sell-off the wimmin too:

Aston Villa consider selling women’s team to help comply with PSR

Men’s team’s recent success has come at a cost, and club are in danger of breaking Premier League financial rules by making losses of more than £105million over three seasons

Kit Shepard, Women's Football Reporter
Friday April 04 2025, 5.30pm BST, The Times

Aston Villa are exploring selling stakes in their women’s team to help them comply with the Premier League’s financial rules.
The club recorded a £195million loss over the past two years, meaning they are in danger of breaching the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Selling part of their women’s team would offer a new way to reduce losses.

It is understood that multiple Premier League teams with Women’s Super League sides are exploring similar measures after Chelsea sold their women’s team to the club’s parent company to help them avoid breaking PSR. While it is not clear whether Villa would effectively sell to themselves or to external investors, any transaction would provide important revenue.

Villa’s men’s team has enjoyed stellar on-pitch success over the past two campaigns, but it has come at a cost. They reported a loss of £85.4million for the 2023-24 season, a loss of £119.6 million for 2022-23, and a profit of £300,000 for 2021-22. A loss of more than £105million over three seasons constitutes a PSR breach, though spending on infrastructure, youth and women’s football is exempt.

Villa unsuccessfully attempted to have the limit raised to £135million last June and their owner, Nassef Sawiris, told the Financial Times that month that the rules “do not make sense”. The club sold Douglas Luiz, Omari Kellyman and Tim Iroegbunam for a combined £70million just before last summer’s annual PSR deadline.

A women’s team sale, then, may allow Villa and other clubs to stay compliant without last-minute transfer activity.
Selling to the parent company would allow clubs to control the women’s team’s valuation. It is understood that Chelsea valued their women’s team at considerably more than £150million — at least double the forecasts of football finance experts. Equally, that option may be considered an unfair loophole, with the Premier League yet to approve Chelsea’s sale as being of fair market value.

Selling to external investors is more straightforward but clubs risk losing control over the branding and sponsorship of the women’s team through this approach.

Villa’s men are still in the Champions League and FA Cup, and are pushing for a Champions League place in the league. Their women have been less successful this season and sit second-bottom of the WSL table.
Villa have been contacted for comment.

[Mister E]

I've thought it for a while but I think this season is going to be the best opportunity we have to get some silverware for a good while, because we're going to cash in on a good few players in the summer.

True, although this current fiscal year we have a big upsurge in revenue to offset some of the costs. As ever, it's all down to getting European football (ECL or Europa League) next season.

[Toronto Villa]

https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1908450203704717711?s=46

Chelsea facing Uefa fine and potential ban after overspending
Governing body will not allow Chelsea to count income from £200million sale of women’s team and sale of hotels to sister companies, with club facing ban from Europe if they reoffend.

Chelsea have breached Uefa’s limits on financial losses for last season after the European governing body did not allow the club to count as income selling its women’s team to a sister company for a world-record value of £200million.

The Sunday Times has learnt that Chelsea are now in talks with Uefa over a settlement which is likely to involve the club paying a financial penalty and agreeing to a spending plan for the next three seasons. That plan could include the threat of stiffer sanctions such as exclusion from European competition for a season if they breach the limits again.

The outcome of the settlement is due to be made public by Uefa in mid-May.

Unlike the Premier League, Uefa’s financial rules do not allow clubs to declare income from selling assets to sister companies. As well as £200m from the Chelsea women’s sale to the sister company Blueco 22 Midco Ltd — the actual value was revealed in accounts published by Companies House on Saturday showing a £198.7m paper profit — Chelsea registered income of £76.5m from the sale of two hotels to another sister company in June 2023.

That sum also has to be removed from Chelsea’s balance sheet when it comes to assessing its compliance with Uefa’s limits on financial losses.

Uefa allows clubs to lose a maximum of 200m euros (£170m) over three years and without the income declared from those related-party sales Chelsea have a total three-year loss of £358m. Deductions can be made by the club for spending on youth and women’s teams and on infrastructure so the scale of the breach is not known but is likely to be significant.

Uefa also has a ‘squad cost’ rule that says clubs cannot pay more than 80 per cent of their agreed revenue on player wages, transfers and agents fees. That will reduce to 70 per cent next season.

Sources confirmed Chelsea are already in talks with Uefa over a settlement and ‘sustainability plan’. The owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake, are said to be relaxed about the position and maintaining good relations with Uefa. At least three other European clubs are also believed to be in breach of Uefa’s rules.

The sale of the women’s club and the hotels helped Chelsea pass the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) — the top-flight clubs voted last June against closing the loophole, which allows income from such sales to sister companies to be registered.

Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd’s accounts however warn that the £200m from the women’s club sale is subject to assessment by the Premier League and could be reduced.

The accounts also reveal that the £76.5m value of the hotels sale was not approved by the Premier League and Chelsea have now had to take £6m off and record the actual value of the deal as £70.5m.

A further sum of £17.1m has been recorded as “other operating income” for Chelsea after the club “recharged” the sum to their parent company for the 2022-23 financial year. “It is management’s judgement that the amounts represent costs which were only incurred due to the acquisition of the group by Blueco 22 Ltd and therefore should be borne by the parent company,” the accounts state.

Football financial experts have been sceptical about the high valuation of the Chelsea women’s team. Its accounts show it had turnover of just £11.5m and made a loss of £8.4m last season.

Christina Philippou, a professor in accounting and sport finance specialising in women’s football at the University of Portsmouth, said the figure should “be in the £50m to £80m bracket”.

The most ever paid for a women’s football team was the $250m (about £194m) paid for the United States team Angel City, which plays in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL).

[Toronto Villa]

But all this doesn’t seem to bother the PL.

[lovejoy]

Our accounts are now available on the Companies House website. We have c£250m in wages and c£100m in transfer fees amortisation so a base cost of £350m to cover.

I believe we will need to cash in on a few players in the summer (Watkins, Bailey and McGinn spring to mind). Even so I am nervous that with no Champions League football our current wage bill in unsustainable.

[Stu]

EXPLAINED: How Chelsea finally killed PSR: https://stefanborson.substack.com/p/explained-how-chelsea-finally-killed?triedRedirect=true

[PeterWithe]

Seems pretty odd that costs associated with the Womens teams don't need to be counted in the PL rules around FFP, but the sale of the actual team itself can be.

[cdbearsfan]

Yep. It's clearly complete nonsense.

[Toronto Villa]

Let’s hope the UEFA position on the eliminates Chelsea from European competition next season.

[Dante Lavelli]

Our accounts are now available on the Companies House website. We have c£250m in wages and c£100m in transfer fees amortisation so a base cost of £350m to cover.

I believe we will need to cash in on a few players in the summer (Watkins, Bailey and McGinn spring to mind). Even so I am nervous that with no Champions League football our current wage bill in unsustainable.

The stated revenue last year was £276m, so doesn’t the extra CL money pretty much cover the gap?  I’ve seen £70m mentioned…

[lovejoy]

Id say our cost base has increased since then though. Let’s see.