Wages

[Balham Blade]

That's not quite correct. The Villa loss of 70m in 18/19 was an accounting writedown of assets. That has nothing to do with actual money. It is simply saying our accounts have assets valued at a certain value and they are no longer worth that value. So on the balance sheet, their 'true' market value was used. The difference between the 'true' value and the previous value is considered an accounting loss. 69.5m of the loss in 18/19 was just accounting practice. I am guessing that it was a clever tactic to reduce tax liability for when the owners sold Villa Park to a holding company. Reducing the value made this transaction more cost-effective for them. Further, Villa has to pay rent to the holding company which will be based on the sale price of Villa Park. So the lower the value the lower the rent. Rent is counted towards FFP so this was a financially prudent thing to do

Nope. They recorded a profit on disposal of £34.6m for Villa Park, no exceptional item relating to asset impairment (you can't really impair an asset then sell it for a vast profit - bit pointless). There was fixed asset impairment of £1.5m.

Villa accounts in 18/19
Turnover: £54.3m
Operating costs: £(108.0)m*
Non cash expenses: £(30.2)m
Exceptionals: £(31.3)m^
Villa operating profit in 18/19: £(115)m
Villa other income in 18/19: £47.0m°
Villa profit before tax: £(68.3)m

* Player wages: £(83.3)m, other costs £(24.7)m
^ Promotion bonuses £(45.8)m, CPO for HS2 £14.5m
° Profit on player sales £10.6m, profit on stadium sale £36.4m

In short, had they not gone up they were fucked.

 

[Begley]

Nope. They recorded a profit on disposal of £34.6m for Villa Park, no exceptional item relating to asset impairment (you can't really impair an asset then sell it for a vast profit - bit pointless). There was fixed asset impairment of £1.5m.

Villa accounts in 18/19
Turnover: £54.3m
Operating costs: £(108.0)m*
Non cash expenses: £(30.2)m
Exceptionals: £(31.3)m^
Villa operating profit in 18/19: £(115)m
Villa other income in 18/19: £47.0m°
Villa profit before tax: £(68.3)m

* Player wages: £(83.3)m, other costs £(24.7)m
^ Promotion bonuses £(45.8)m, CPO for HS2 £14.5m
° Profit on player sales £10.6m, profit on stadium sale £36.4m

In short, had they not gone up they were fucked.

Nope. They recorded a profit on disposal of £34.6m for Villa Park, no exceptional item relating to asset impairment (you can't really impair an asset then sell it for a vast profit - bit pointless). There was fixed asset impairment of £1.5m.

Villa accounts in 18/19
Turnover: £54.3m
Operating costs: £(108.0)m*
Non cash expenses: £(30.2)m
Exceptionals: £(31.3)m^
Villa operating profit in 18/19: £(115)m
Villa other income in 18/19: £47.0m°
Villa profit before tax: £(68.3)m

* Player wages: £(83.3)m, other costs £(24.7)m
^ Promotion bonuses £(45.8)m, CPO for HS2 £14.5m
° Profit on player sales £10.6m, profit on stadium sale £36.4m

In short, had they not gone up they were fucked.

I think u may need to rethink that. The 70m loss is specifically recorded and documented as a write-down of assets in the approved and published accounts submitted to the Companies House. A quick Google and you can find them. The sale of Villa Park was in a different accounting year to the 70m loss. The 70m loss was incurred under the previous ownership (accounts are published in arrears, not in advance!). The 36m was the profit on the sale of Villa Park. NSWE sold it to themselves for about 56m, VP valuation was recorded on the accounts at close to 20m, therefore a 36m profit. This was a positive 36m towards FFP calculations. If Villa Park was valued higher than the 20m, the profit would have been less than 36m and Villa would have likely failed FFP.

 

[Balham Blade]

I think u may need to rethink that. The 70m loss is specifically recorded and documented as a write-down of assets in the approved and published accounts submitted to the Companies House. A quick Google and you can find them. The sale of Villa Park was in a different accounting year to the 70m loss. The 70m loss was incurred under the previous ownership (accounts are published in arrears, not in advance!). The 36m was the profit on the sale of Villa Park. NSWE sold it to themselves for about 56m, VP valuation was recorded on the accounts at close to 20m, therefore a 36m profit. This was a positive 36m towards FFP calculations. If Villa Park was valued higher than the 20m, the profit would have been less than 36m and Villa would have likely failed FFP.

I'm happy with my analysis. The impairment of Villa Park (£44.8m) happened in 2015/16. Villa lost £68.3m in their promotion season under the current ownership despite the £36m profit from selling the stadium.

You're correct, all the information is on Companies House as well as Swiss Rambler's really helpful Twitter feed.

ASTON VILLA LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ASTON VILLA LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

NSWE SPORTS LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

NSWE SPORTS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Happy to help.

 

[Begley]

I'm happy with my analysis. The impairment of Villa Park (£44.8m) happened in 2015/16. Villa lost £68.3m in their promotion season under the current ownership despite the £36m profit from selling the stadium.

You're correct, all the information is on Companies House as well as Swiss Rambler's really helpful Twitter feed.

ASTON VILLA LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ASTON VILLA LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

NSWE SPORTS LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

NSWE SPORTS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Happy to help.

Happy to help LOL

Did you actually read the accounts for the promotion year? Are you aware that 30m of the loss in that season is part of the purchase price for AVFC that NSWE agreed to at the time of acquisition and nothing to do with underwriting losses? If you want to cherry-pick accounts to suit the narrative then that's fine. Personally, I was just looking at the cost to NSWE and their underwriting of losses in relation to monies available to pay players. If you are looking for a true assessment of the accounts then u really should view both sets of accounts i.e. holding company and football company. Isn't the big picture accounts all that really matters with regard to money coming into the organisation from owners?

Did it help you my explaining how the reduced valuation of Villa Park was financially prudent and not, as you say 'a bit pointless'?

 

[SilkyBlade]

You’ve got no right slagging of his impairments Begley take it back!

 

[Begley]

You’ve got no right slagging of his impairments Begley take it back!

Very true, I shouldn't slag off anybody's impairments. Sincere apologies

 

[BlairBlade]

HRH/SUFC can not afford it.

Agreed. But with all the money that has been spent supporters are entitled to expect an improvement - two points by January is not that.

 

[BlairBlade]

Sorry, but absolutely wrong.
Other clubs bring in additional money through sponsorship of everything from the stadium down to the paperweights in the Chairman's office.

It's what the Premier League is, it's a cash cow for every club that's in it.

Sheffield United are about as marketable as a chocolate teapot, and this is due to many things.

A shit club infrastructure with a shit image that the club is actually proud of, the city itself has a shit image that it's actually proud of and revels in.

The fans like shit football, with shit players, playing a shit style, with shit tactics and zero quality, skill, creativity, flair or ability, they revel in the fact that they did it cheaper, scruffier and uglier than everybody else, and are completely blind to the fact that it's shit.

Modern, forward thinking companies and would be sponsors want nothing to do with the image that this club and this city project, and even less to do with how proud they both are of this image.

The money has come into the club, and it has been wasted on transfer fees buying players that other Premier League clubs didn't want.

Any player we did want saw Fulham and Brighton as better options,

Fulham and Brighton !!!!!!

Image is everything these days, and Sheffield's is shit, and Sheffield United's is even worse

Shit!

 

[CentralQuay]

"Image is everything these days, and Sheffield's is shit"

Stop with this nonsense.

 

[Begley]

Agreed. But with all the money that has been spent supporters are entitled to expect an improvement - two points by January is not that.

This is a really genuine question as I disagree with the SUFC cannot afford higher wages. I am open to understanding the opposite opinion. But SUFU, like all companies budget for a number of years in advance. They also look at what is realistic and what is not. During the promotion season in the Championship, I can't believe for one moment that the board of SUFC did not gamble everything on winning promotion to the Premier League. Having won promotion the monies from the PL were somewhat of a windfall. SUFC would have continued operating without this windfall. To make the discussion easier let's say the Championship was worth 30m to SUFC and the PL was worth 130m (Not exact numbers but in the right ballpark). So a minimum of 2 years in the PL and SUFC have 200m revenue more than they would have if they hadn't been promoted. Plus, 3 years of parachute payments worth another 100m if relegated. This was ALL money that SUFC did not relay on earning. Yes, they wanted it but it was not essential. Paying 50k / 75k a week in wages is 2.6m / 3.9m a year in wages. How is it that SUFC cannot afford this? Is it not that SUFC elect not to invest this money into the squad to spend it elsewhere as opposed to cannot afford it? I understand the logic in why a club would adopt this approach but I also see the negatives. I have read many times on here that SUFC could not afford to pay the wages for Maupay, Cash or Watkins. I think SUFC could afford their wages but elected not to pay the wages as they wanted to spend the money elsewhere / save it for a rainy day. Yes, it is important to look to the future and future valuations etc but relegation from the PL costs about 100m a year. Would increasing the budget on wages not reduce the risk of a potential relegation? Is the idea of SUFC can't afford the wages, more like SUFC do not want to pay the wages?

 

[Begley]

Sheffield United are about as marketable as a chocolate teapot, and this is due to many things.

That is total bollox.

SUFC play in the richest most viewed football league on the planet. There are only 20 teams with this privilege. Selling advertising and marketing as a Premier League club is a seller's market. On top of that SUFC were the darlings of the media and the neutral's team to support. The rise from League 1 became known to everyone. Every neutral loved the way SUFC played the game with no fear, attacking football while taking points from the establishment. If you think that is as marketable as a chocolate teapot I suggest you never ever look for a job in any type of sales role.

 

[CentralQuay]

This is a really genuine question as I disagree with the SUFC cannot afford higher wages. I am open to understanding the opposite opinion. But SUFU, like all companies budget for a number of years in advance. They also look at what is realistic and what is not. During the promotion season in the Championship, I can't believe for one moment that the board of SUFC did not gamble everything on winning promotion to the Premier League. Having won promotion the monies from the PL were somewhat of a windfall. SUFC would have continued operating without this windfall. To make the discussion easier let's say the Championship was worth 30m to SUFC and the PL was worth 130m (Not exact numbers but in the right ballpark). So a minimum of 2 years in the PL and SUFC have 200m revenue more than they would have if they hadn't been promoted. Plus, 3 years of parachute payments worth another 100m if relegated. This was ALL money that SUFC did not relay on earning. Yes, they wanted it but it was not essential. Paying 50k / 75k a week in wages is 2.6m / 3.9m a year in wages. How is it that SUFC cannot afford this? Is it not that SUFC elect not to invest this money into the squad to spend it elsewhere as opposed to cannot afford it? I understand the logic in why a club would adopt this approach but I also see the negatives. I have read many times on here that SUFC could not afford to pay the wages for Maupay, Cash or Watkins. I think SUFC could afford their wages but elected not to pay the wages as they wanted to spend the money elsewhere / save it for a rainy day. Yes, it is important to look to the future and future valuations etc but relegation from the PL costs about 100m a year. Would increasing the budget on wages not reduce the risk of a potential relegation? Is the idea of SUFC can't afford the wages, more like SUFC do not want to pay the wages?

Whilst you're correct than the windfall as a result of promotion would result in those budgets increasing, you also have to take into account your increased wage bill as a result of bonuses/new contracts/new signings. The fact that any new signing, in terms of both the fee and the wage, will be significantly higher than the championship, and you then realise the money doesn't go as far as you think.

Signings like Maupay/Cash/Watkins are less about whether SUFC could match wages, and more about who the players would rather sign for. I'm not referring to the somewhat idiotic view from some who claim its because 'Sheffield as a City has a bad image', i'm referring more to the size, structure and ambition of the club.



"Is the idea of SUFC can't afford the wages, more like SUFC do not want to pay the wages?"

I think it's more a case of they feel they're unable to attract the calibre of player, where substantially increasing the wages are justified.
They don't want to pay PL wages, for Championship players.

 

[CentralQuay]

Sheffield United are about as marketable as a chocolate teapot, and this is due to many things.

That is total bollox.

SUFC play in the richest most viewed football league on the planet. There are only 20 teams with this privilege. Selling advertising and marketing as a Premier League club is a seller's market. On top of that SUFC were the darlings of the media and the neutral's team to support. The rise from League 1 became known to everyone. Every neutral loved the way SUFC played the game with no fear, attacking football while taking points from the establishment. If you think that is as marketable as a chocolate teapot I suggest you never ever look for a job in any type of sales role.

This is the kind of nonsense that fans love to buy into.

"Every neutral loved the way SUFC played the game with no fear, attacking football"
39 goals in 38 games is not much evidence 'attacking football'. Even Burnley who are often claimed to be a side which are not 'Neutral friendly' scored 43.

"The rise from League 1 became known to everyone."
I'm not too sure anybody really cared. Bournemouth and Blackpool have risen from League 2 to the Premier League in recent years, it's really not as uncommon a feat as you may think. Southampton, Wolves, Leicester and Leeds have all come from League 1 in the past decade too, with Southampton winning promotion from League 1 back to back and Leicester also winning a PL title.



You're also contradicting yourself a bit, making it sound like the club is extremely marketable, but also kind of calling the club 'Little old Sheffield United'.

 

[Begley]

Whilst you're correct than the windfall as a result of promotion would result in those budgets increasing, you also have to take into account your increased wage bill as a result of bonuses/new contracts/new signings. The fact that any new signing, in terms of both the fee and the wage, will be significantly higher than the championship, and you then realise the money doesn't go as far as you think.

Signings like Maupay/Cash/Watkins are less about whether SUFC could match wages, and more about who the players would rather sign for. I'm not referring to the somewhat idiotic view from some who claim its because 'Sheffield as a City has a bad image', i'm referring more to the size, structure and ambition of the club.



"Is the idea of SUFC can't afford the wages, more like SUFC do not want to pay the wages?"

I think it's more a case of they feel they're unable to attract the calibre of player, where substantially increasing the wages are justified.
They don't want to pay PL wages, for Championship players.

I agree teams with a longer previous history will be more attractive to players as they are more likely to sustain their position in the PL. I agree that it has nothing to do with 'Sheffield'. If the player feels they will stay in the PL then the City doesn't really matter. Yes, London will have the attraction to some players but there is no reason why Sheffield can't compete with other cities for players. I get the idea of not wanting to pay PL wages for Championship players but like most other clubs, buying PL players is near impossible due to the massive transfer fees. Player sales form PL team to other PL team have gone mad. Therefore clubs must pay PL wages for players that they believe will become PL players. Maupay, Cash, Watkins, Benrahma, Che Adams, Bowen, Webster, Daniel James all from the Championship. Notably, the were all proven top scores / best defenders for their respective teams over a number of years. Its the same with foreign players, the ones with good potential also cost a lot of money. The revenue and profits at SUFC are big enough to pay PL wages but doesn't the club elect not to pay the big wages and to invest in a player that will accept lower wages in the hope that they will make it in the PL. If the player accepts 20k a week (or whatever at SUFC) this just means that no other club was prepared to pay him 50k a week. There tends to be a reason other clubs won't pay the 50k a week.

 

[CentralQuay]

I agree teams with a longer previous history will be more attractive to players as they are more likely to sustain their position in the PL. I agree that it has nothing to do with 'Sheffield'. If the player feels they will stay in the PL then the City doesn't really matter. Yes, London will have the attraction to some players but there is no reason why Sheffield can't compete with other cities for players. I get the idea of not wanting to pay PL wages for Championship players but like most other clubs, buying PL players is near impossible due to the massive transfer fees. Player sales form PL team to other PL team have gone mad. Therefore clubs must pay PL wages for players that they believe will become PL players. Maupay, Cash, Watkins, Benrahma, Che Adams, Bowen, Webster, Daniel James all from the Championship. Notably, the were all proven top scores / best defenders for their respective teams over a number of years. Its the same with foreign players, the ones with good potential also cost a lot of money. The revenue and profits at SUFC are big enough to pay PL wages but doesn't the club elect not to pay the big wages and to invest in a player that will accept lower wages in the hope that they will make it in the PL. If the player accepts 20k a week (or whatever at SUFC) this just means that no other club was prepared to pay him 50k a week. There tends to be a reason other clubs won't pay the 50k a week.

But only if the club stays in the league.

The longer you stay in the league, the more you enhance your reputation, the better your finances become etc etc.
But this side has stayed up for 1 season, so is effectively still a Championship club financially and structurally.

 

[Begley]

This is the kind of nonsense that fans love to buy into.

"Every neutral loved the way SUFC played the game with no fear, attacking football"
39 goals in 38 games is not much evidence 'attacking football'. Even Burnley who are often claimed to be a side which are not 'Neutral friendly' scored 43.

"The rise from League 1 became known to everyone."
I'm not too sure anybody really cared. Bournemouth and Blackpool have risen from League 2 to the Premier League in recent years, it's really not as uncommon a feat as you may think. Southampton, Wolves, Leicester and Leeds have all come from League 1 in the past decade too, with Southampton winning promotion from League 1 back to back and Leicester also winning a PL title.



You're also contradicting yourself a bit, making it sound like the club is extremely marketable, but also kind of calling the club 'Little old Sheffield United'.

I am not calling the club 'Little Old Sheffield'. I was specifically referring to the marketability of the club. The bottom line is that SUFC was in League 1 a few years ago and now in the PL. So yes, there is a different appeal when marketing SUFC and driving revenue. 39 goals doesn't mean SUFC didn't play attacking football, it could be related to the lack of PL quality strikers. The overall style of play last season was attacking with lots of grit. It was absolutely nothing like Burnley's style of football. Are you really suggesting they were similar?

 

[Begley]

But only if the club stays in the league.

The longer you stay in the league, the more you enhance your reputation, the better your finances become etc etc.
But this side has stayed up for 1 season, so is effectively still a Championship club financially and structurally.

2 years in the PL is worth about an extra 350m to SUFC as opposed to spending those two years in the Championship. That is not the same financial structure as a Championship club

 

[CentralQuay]

I am not calling the club 'Little Old Sheffield'. I was specifically referring to the marketability of the club. The bottom line is that SUFC was in League 1 a few years ago and now in the PL. So yes, there is a different appeal when marketing SUFC and driving revenue. 39 goals doesn't mean SUFC didn't play attacking football, it could be related to the lack of PL quality strikers. The overall style of play last season was attacking with lots of grit. It was absolutely nothing like Burnley's style of football. Are you really suggesting they were similar?

You cannot be in the top 5 lowest scorers in the league, have the lowest number of shots in the league and somehow manage to claim to be an 'attacking side'.

2 years in the PL is worth about an extra 350m to SUFC as opposed to spending those two years in the Championship. That is not the same financial structure as a Championship club

Norwich, Swansea, Bournemouth, Watford and Stoke have all spent 2 years or more in the PL over recent years.....At least 2 of them will be a 'Championship club' again next season.

 

[Begley]

You cannot be in the top 5 lowest scorers in the league, have the lowest number of shots in the league and somehow manage to claim to be an 'attacking side'.

As I said, that could be down to the lack of PL quality strikers. Last season SUFC spent an average of 32% of each game in the opposition's third of the pitch. This was third highest in the PL behind Manchester City and Liverpool. Do you not think that is a sign of attacking football?

Norwich, Swansea, Bournemouth, Watford and Stoke have all spent 2 years or more in the PL over recent years.....At least 2 of them will be a 'Championship club' again next season.

I am not sure what point you are making. Para payments run out and decrease over time, their revenue from the PL was years ago. I am talking about the current. SUFC is currently earning PL money, none of the others u mention are. SUFU have a guaranteed 3 years of parachute payments, none of the others has. Also, there are 19 other teams in the Championship.

 

[CentralQuay]

As I said, that could be down to the lack of PL quality strikers. Last season SUFC spent an average of 32% of each game in the opposition's third of the pitch. This was third highest in the PL behind Manchester City and Liverpool. Do you not think that is a sign of attacking football?


I am not sure what point you are making. Para payments run out and decrease over time, their revenue from the PL was years ago. I am talking about the current. SUFC is currently earning PL money, none of the others u mention are. SUFU have a guaranteed 3 years of parachute payments, none of the others has. Also, there are 19 other teams in the Championship.

Burnley don't have 'PL quality strikers', but still score more and actually create chances.

The reality is, the club isn't able to pay the wages you expect. Or, in reality, attract the kinds of player that would demand increased wages.

 

[Begley]

.

There is absolutely no basis for that. PL money is clearly there, it is a choice not to spend it. Saying SUFC can't attract the type of players is a real cop-out. All PL clubs can attract top-class players. Trying to claim otherwise is not facing up to reality. Elite players aside, if any PL clubs pays the money they will get the player

 

[CentralQuay]

There is absolutely no basis for that. PL money is clearly there, it is a choice not to spend it. Saying SUFC can't attract the type of players is a real cop-out. All PL clubs can attract top-class players. Trying to claim otherwise is not facing up to reality. Elite players aside, if any PL clubs pays the money they will get the player

But what if multiple clubs want the same player?

We've seen that the outcome then, is that the player picks the other club over SUFC.

 

[Begley]

But what if multiple clubs want the same player?

We've seen that the outcome then, is that the player picks the other club over SUFC.

There will always be competition. If you are way off the salary level you simply will not sign the players. If you are competing on salary then players will sign. Yes some may elect to go to other clubs but players will sign. Its ludicrous to suggest that players would not sign for Blades because of the stature of the club and that Blades can only get the cast-offs. In Aug Blades were are a far more attractive proposition to Fulham, yet hey managed to sing some quality players. The reason: they paid the wages necessary. Why did life long Celtic supporter, John McGinn, who openly says he dreamed of playing for Celtic sign for Championship side Villa instead of Celtic who were in the Champions League? Because Villa paid the money necessary for him. The PL is all about money. If a club does not compete with the money they will fail. If they compete with money they will survive and succeed.

 

[Balham Blade]

Happy to help LOL

Did you actually read the accounts for the promotion year? Are you aware that 30m of the loss in that season is part of the purchase price for AVFC that NSWE agreed to at the time of acquisition and nothing to do with underwriting losses? If you want to cherry-pick accounts to suit the narrative then that's fine. Personally, I was just looking at the cost to NSWE and their underwriting of losses in relation to monies available to pay players. If you are looking for a true assessment of the accounts then u really should view both sets of accounts i.e. holding company and football company. Isn't the big picture accounts all that really matters with regard to money coming into the organisation from owners?

Did it help you my explaining how the reduced valuation of Villa Park was financially prudent and not, as you say 'a bit pointless'?

Why would the purchase price of AVFC be put through the FC's P&L? That makes no sense.

In terms of the reduced valuation of Villa Park yes, it was prudent to reduce it but it would have been pointless to revalue it in the year of sale as all you'd be doing is moving money around on the in-year P&L, it would be a wooden dollar exercise. If you don't understand that concept then there's not much more I can say.

The bottom line is that Villa lost £100+m in the promotion season mainly because they paid their players £130m on income of £55m. They were able to reduce this to £70m by selling the stadium to a connected company for a £36m book profit. It's not difficult.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but to agree with the start, the Prince has no business retweeting matters relating to SUFC, where it could cause a dispute or internal politics. There's a certain level of decorum expected.

I'm also not sure of his purpose in retweeting Phipps or the point Phipps is trying to make. If they are arguing that Wilder hasn't had a cap of £30/35k per week to offer in wages, but instead £40/50k per week, the true amount is neither here nor there, in the sense that either:

1. The actual cap still wasn't competitive enough to compete with the likes of Fulham or Villa, we don't have the finances to compete or;
2. If we do have the finances to compete, players still are not opting to come to SUFC and the fault thereby lies with the Owners (and the need for more time) to make SUFC a more desirable club to sign for.

Either way, either option suggests to me that we cannot compete as yet, that we require more time to build and establish the club, and that Wilder needs more time and that this is in no way a 'pass the blame to Wilder' scenario.

 

[ancientblade]

I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but to agree with the start, the Prince has no business retweeting matters relating to SUFC, where it could cause a dispute or internal politics. There's a certain level of decorum expected.

I'm also not sure of his purpose in retweeting Phipps or the point Phipps is trying to make. If they are arguing that Wilder hasn't had a cap of £30/35k per week to offer in wages, but instead £40/50k per week, the true amount is neither here nor there, in the sense that either:

1. The actual cap still wasn't competitive enough to compete with the likes of Fulham or Villa, we don't have the finances to compete or;
2. If we do have the finances to compete, players still are not opting to come to SUFC and the fault thereby lies with the Owners (and the need for more time) to make SUFC a more desirable club to sign for.

Either way, either option suggests to me that we cannot compete as yet, that we require more time to build and establish the club, and that Wilder needs more time and that this is in no way a 'pass the blame to Wilder' scenario.

youve hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph at the present time we cant compete in the premier league it all happened a bit too quick for the club but law of averages says that if you pay the 20th lowest salaries you will finish 20th its the way of modern top flight football im afraid

 

[Begley]

Why would the purchase price of AVFC be put through the FC's P&L? That makes no sense.

In terms of the reduced valuation of Villa Park yes, it was prudent to reduce it but it would have been pointless to revalue it in the year of sale as all you'd be doing is moving money around on the in-year P&L, it would be a wooden dollar exercise. If you don't understand that concept then there's not much more I can say.

The bottom line is that Villa lost £100+m in the promotion season mainly because they paid their players £130m on income of £55m. They were able to reduce this to £70m by selling the stadium to a connected company for a £36m book profit. It's not difficult.

in the promotion season mainly because they paid their players £130m

According to the published accounts (which you actually posted the link to). Total staff costs for the 851 staff (not just the players), 465 part-time and 386 part-time were 95m which included pension contributions and extras, actual wages were 85m. Not sure where you are getting the 130m number from.

I didn't say the purchase of AVFC was put through the P&L. I said the 30m for the purchase was put through P&L which makes total sense. Basically, NSWE agreed to pay 84m for 55% of AVFC. 54m to be paid at the time of purchase. 30m extra to be paid based on promotion to the PL in the first 3 years. This was achieved hence 30m through the P&L and not form AVFC as they structured the debt to the club. This makes a lot of sense from a tax planning perspective. Further, since acquisition NSWE has purchased the remaining 45% from Recon. This was achieved by investing money into the club and diluting Recon's shareholding each time. As you say, it is not difficult, all the data is available in the public domain.
Also, was this discussion not about PL income and revenues and the ability of a PL club to pay wages? What is the interest in the accounts form 3 years ago as a Championship side?

 

[BlairBlade]

This is a really genuine question as I disagree with the SUFC cannot afford higher wages. I am open to understanding the opposite opinion. But SUFU, like all companies budget for a number of years in advance. They also look at what is realistic and what is not. During the promotion season in the Championship, I can't believe for one moment that the board of SUFC did not gamble everything on winning promotion to the Premier League. Having won promotion the monies from the PL were somewhat of a windfall. SUFC would have continued operating without this windfall. To make the discussion easier let's say the Championship was worth 30m to SUFC and the PL was worth 130m (Not exact numbers but in the right ballpark). So a minimum of 2 years in the PL and SUFC have 200m revenue more than they would have if they hadn't been promoted. Plus, 3 years of parachute payments worth another 100m if relegated. This was ALL money that SUFC did not relay on earning. Yes, they wanted it but it was not essential. Paying 50k / 75k a week in wages is 2.6m / 3.9m a year in wages. How is it that SUFC cannot afford this? Is it not that SUFC elect not to invest this money into the squad to spend it elsewhere as opposed to cannot afford it? I understand the logic in why a club would adopt this approach but I also see the negatives. I have read many times on here that SUFC could not afford to pay the wages for Maupay, Cash or Watkins. I think SUFC could afford their wages but elected not to pay the wages as they wanted to spend the money elsewhere / save it for a rainy day. Yes, it is important to look to the future and future valuations etc but relegation from the PL costs about 100m a year. Would increasing the budget on wages not reduce the risk of a potential relegation? Is the idea of SUFC can't afford the wages, more like SUFC do not want to pay the wages?

If that is correct, and it is not simply that invariably players would prefer to go elsewhere, then who is making those decisions?
In any event, we are unlikely to know what the terms of the players employment contracts are should we, God forbid, get relegated.
As has been seen over past years, some clubs get well and truly fucked once relegated as they had not prepared for that my being able to unilaterally reduce wages, overheads, etc.
There is also the matter of where the money comes from. Out of the Prince's pocket or borrowed against future earnings, success, etc.
I am sure we can, and will, pay very good wages. But if we do not have deep financial reserves to weather any storm and not necessarily simply relegation, we are always going to be at a disadvantage compared with any club bank rolled by a billionaire.

 

[bertieblade]

It has already been stated that all contracts have a relegation clause in them, parachute payments are sufficient to fund the first three years salaries. If any additional funds required we offload players a d start again all be it at a higher level as we will have more money and in theory a better squad than the one Wilder took to the Championship on the way up

 

[Balham Blade]

in the promotion season mainly because they paid their players £130m

According to the published accounts (which you actually posted the link to). Total staff costs for the 851 staff (not just the players), 465 part-time and 386 part-time were 95m which included pension contributions and extras, actual wages were 85m. Not sure where you are getting the 130m number from.

I didn't say the purchase of AVFC was put through the P&L. I said the 30m for the purchase was put through P&L which makes total sense. Basically, NSWE agreed to pay 84m for 55% of AVFC. 54m to be paid at the time of purchase. 30m extra to be paid based on promotion to the PL in the first 3 years. This was achieved hence 30m through the P&L and not form AVFC as they structured the debt to the club. This makes a lot of sense from a tax planning perspective. Further, since acquisition NSWE has purchased the remaining 45% from Recon. This was achieved by investing money into the club and diluting Recon's shareholding each time. As you say, it is not difficult, all the data is available in the public domain.
Also, was this discussion not about PL income and revenues and the ability of a PL club to pay wages? What is the interest in the accounts form 3 years ago as a Championship side?

I was adding the £45m "promotion bonus" line to the £85m-odd under wages which was £10m up on 2017/18. Our wage bill increased by over £30m in the promotion season so I would be amazed if Villa's bonuses weren't in a similar vein. Amounts paid to the former owners would normally be treated as share premiums so not hit the P&L but they're tagged as "impairments of amounts due to the company relating to liabilities arising on promotion". It doesn't really matter whether the wagebill was £85m, £100m or £130m, all of those are well above what we would have paid out last season in the Premier League. This is relevant to the discussion about United's ability to pay PL wages insofaras it relates to the wagebills of theoretically equivalent sides. Villa's player wages will, I would have thought, be well over £100m per season now - on income in the region of £120m that's not ideal. Ours will be in the £60-70m which at around 50% of turnover is far more sustainable but unfortunately the amount doesn't allow us to be truly competitive.

We could sign someone like Danny Welbeck on £65k per week. It's extremely unlikely he'll generate a transfer fee in the future so that's a sunk cost of £3.8m per season, £11m cost over three years. We chose to sign Brewster on (at a guess) £35k per week and a £18m transfer fee in the hope and maybe expectation that he'll develop to the point where we can sell him for £30m in three years' time. At that point he's generated us £6m over the three years (£30m income less initial £18m fee + £2m per year in wages). There's also the potential imbalance which would be generated if we brought in someone like Welbeck on more than double the next highest earner rather than increasing the top wage incrementally. What has gone hugely wrong is that the big signings haven't had anything like the impact we needed them to have because the team structure has been compromised, an issue discussed at length elsewhere on the forum.

The final simple fact remains that you're still not correct in stating that Villa Park was revalued in the year of its sale. I would imagine that the only reason NSWE sold it to the holding company was to provide Villa with cashflow. The associated P&L benefit was just an added bonus.