FFP

[kippaxvilla2]

Hang on I thought we were okay on PSR?!

[kippaxvilla2]

In fact I am going to say for the Athletic that is a really misleading article as they just seem to be speculating on the income from the CL, sales of Duran etc.

[Dogtanian]

I am confident we are fine for PSR.

PSR allows you to deduct your spend on women's football, youth development, and social work. So the overall loss that gets reported is not the actual loss used for PSR.

In 2021-22 and 2022-23, Villa's accounts reported the spend on the three deductibles, allowing us to actually see the PSR result.

2021-22 Overall Profit/Loss: +£0.36m PSR Profit/Loss: +£20.6m
2022-23 Overall Profit/Loss: -£119.6m PSR Profit/Loss: -£96.7m

Unfortunately, they didn't break those details out in last seasons accounts. But if we assume that the spend on those three areas remained at least the same as the previous season (and in all likelihood, it increased), then the £49m loss becomes a £26.5m loss for PSR.

Add those three together, and our PSR figure for 2021-2024 is -£102.6m... just within the PSR limit.

So using this, we can also predict that for the first two years of the 2022-2025 period, the PSR figure was -£123m. Meaning last season we actually need a PSR profit of around £18m, again assuming that we are still spending at only the 2022-23 levels on the women, academy, and social projects. Again, this is more than likely to have increased.

So, the question is, have we made a profit in 2024-25?

On player trading, I am confident we have made a profit with the deals with have done, taking into account book values and amortisation. We've spent around £180m, typically split across 4-5 years, that will be around £50m on the years accounts. We've sold about £170m, and while Duran and Diaby will still have had significant book value, assuming they were on 5 year deals they will have brought in around £65m profit together.

Turnover wise, we know it will have increased massively. Adidas, Betano, new Trade Nation deal, increase in GA+ and hospitality, CL ticket prices and run, plus the increase in televised revenues.

Our other significant cost is then wages. We won't have paid a CL qualification bonus, and we know we let go Diaby because it got his wages off the book. So do we think wages have increased to such an extent that they have eaten up all of the extra we have made plus all the transfer profit? I don't believe so.

So everything is telling me that we are fine. 

[ChicagoLion]

Good analysis.
You would think that they will have budgeted and were able to do the January deals, which they wouldn’t have if PSR was a problem.
The reduction in revenue from failure to qualify for the CL is going to be restrictive this window.

[OCD]

Why might Palace get knocked out of Uefa competitions without kicking a ball?

The ownership group at CPFC have a majority share in Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.

I thought they were getting relegated from League Un because of their finances.

[baddowvillans]

But no punishment for Man City - except of course the 10 point deduction for Everton.  It's truly rotten to the core!

[eamonn]

Finance would have been forecasting their arses off since January and before, for May '25 what-if scenarios: CL v Europa v Conference and this will have fed into our winter-window splurge. It's all cushty. Probably.

[tomd2103]

I am confident we are fine for PSR.

PSR allows you to deduct your spend on women's football, youth development, and social work. So the overall loss that gets reported is not the actual loss used for PSR.

In 2021-22 and 2022-23, Villa's accounts reported the spend on the three deductibles, allowing us to actually see the PSR result.

2021-22 Overall Profit/Loss: +£0.36m PSR Profit/Loss: +£20.6m
2022-23 Overall Profit/Loss: -£119.6m PSR Profit/Loss: -£96.7m

Unfortunately, they didn't break those details out in last seasons accounts. But if we assume that the spend on those three areas remained at least the same as the previous season (and in all likelihood, it increased), then the £49m loss becomes a £26.5m loss for PSR.

Add those three together, and our PSR figure for 2021-2024 is -£102.6m... just within the PSR limit.

So using this, we can also predict that for the first two years of the 2022-2025 period, the PSR figure was -£123m. Meaning last season we actually need a PSR profit of around £18m, again assuming that we are still spending at only the 2022-23 levels on the women, academy, and social projects. Again, this is more than likely to have increased.

So, the question is, have we made a profit in 2024-25?

On player trading, I am confident we have made a profit with the deals with have done, taking into account book values and amortisation. We've spent around £180m, typically split across 4-5 years, that will be around £50m on the years accounts. We've sold about £170m, and while Duran and Diaby will still have had significant book value, assuming they were on 5 year deals they will have brought in around £65m profit together.

Turnover wise, we know it will have increased massively. Adidas, Betano, new Trade Nation deal, increase in GA+ and hospitality, CL ticket prices and run, plus the increase in televised revenues.

Our other significant cost is then wages. We won't have paid a CL qualification bonus, and we know we let go Diaby because it got his wages off the book. So do we think wages have increased to such an extent that they have eaten up all of the extra we have made plus all the transfer profit? I don't believe so.

So everything is telling me that we are fine. 

An article I read said there was a £27m limit on the deductibles that are claimed, so we could only have a loss of around £17m this season before deductibles were added to be compliant, so that figure in the Athletic doesn't look miles off.

I'm sure there is a lot of guesswork involved in these articles and am confident that the club will have their house in order.

[ChicagoLion]

The problem is the up and coming financial year and the necessity sell players to comply.   

[PeterWithe]

The Athletic



https://archive.ph/ycL6l

That Chelsea and Man City appear at the top of that chart shows how bent it is

[OCD]

Brighton are only 2nd because they've regularly had to sell their best players.

[Gareth]

The Athletic



https://archive.ph/ycL6l

The Chelsea and Man City appear at the top of that chart shows how bent it is

The worry with that picture is you need 5/6 teams in the ‘at risk’ to get a marketplace going - when you are nominally the only one other teams will all try and be Daniel levy and bid ridiculously low.  Hopefully the reality is that we have a few partners in crime to do our deals to fix the books.

Reality though is absolutely no one outside of the Premier League financial offices and the football club have access to all the numbers or the justifications for those numbers so that table amongst all other ‘experts’ opinions is built on some public domain info plus assumptions and guesswork.  Dealings in next 3 weeks will make the PSR clearer but there will always be another looming financial deadline to keep the likes of Kieran Maguire gainfully employed:-)

I don’t like the constant trading of players, feels like we will see less and less ‘career players’ spending majority of careers in one place…think that’s why as much as I love watching this team I have no real affinity to most of them, in fact only really McGinn, Mings & JJ because they were around in Championship.  When think back to Platt, Yorke, Barry, Young even Grealish going was gutted…now if they sell Emi and Rogers tomorrow it would be ‘a shame but there will be a replacement next week’

[Ads]

We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.

[ozzjim]

We won't have an issue when Aitiros buys the women's team for £100m im a week or two and when we sell the Warehouse to Comcast for £50m or whatever shenanigans we will be forced to undertake.

Which is the common sense move to make. Isn't there a calculation that the women's team, based on Chelsea, is £108m. Need to build a couple of hotels in Dubai and sell them too like Chelsea are.

[Dogtanian]

The worry with that picture is you need 5/6 teams in the ‘at risk’ to get a marketplace going - when you are nominally the only one other teams will all try and be Daniel levy and bid ridiculously low.  Hopefully the reality is that we have a few partners in crime to do our deals to fix the books.

You are right, it's bad thing when you are the one who everyone knows is in the shit and people can take advantage. But I think we are past that problem.

To comply with PSR, 2024-25 has to be a good year for the books. As I posted above, I think it needs to be an £18m ish PSR profit to comply.

With that, our £119m loss season in 2022-23 drops off the books. Leaving us two years into the next 3 year period with a PSR loss of only £8m...

That, along with our revenue increases, is going to take the pressure off us for next season and going forward. As with the revenue increases realised and planned, we shouldn't have to have £100m+ loss seasons again.