Football Finances

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Aston Villas 2009 accounts have been filed today.

 

On turnover of £84m they racked up a loss of £46m. Thats quite a result 

 

Their wage bill is £70m, which is 83% of their turnover.

 

Lerner funded it all of course and has now invested a total of about £260m in the club.

 

 

 

And people think O'Neill doesn't know how to spend

[quayside]

How did you access their accounts quayside?

 

Companies House website - costs £1. The parent company is called Reform Acquisitions Limited, company number 5891280.

[Stifler]

Aston Villa’s 2009 accounts have been filed today.

 

On turnover of £84m they racked up a loss of £46m. That’s quite a result

 

Their wage bill is £70m, which is 83% of their turnover.

 

Lerner funded it all of course and has now invested a total of about £260m in the club.

 

 

 

Maybe Aston Villa isn't the club we should be looking to follow from then.

 

I'd love to see Spurs's accounts, despite what they say I just cannot see them having a low wage bill and making a profit.

[quayside]

Aston Villa’s 2009 accounts have been filed today.

 

On turnover of £84m they racked up a loss of £46m. That’s quite a result 

 

Their wage bill is £70m, which is 83% of their turnover.

 

Lerner funded it all of course and has now invested a total of about £260m in the club.

 

 

 

Maybe Aston Villa isn't the club we should be looking to follow from then.

 

I'd love to see Spurs's accounts, despite what they say I just cannot see them having a low wage bill and making a profit.

 

Spurs 2009 accounts are also available.

 

Turnover £113m

Wage bill £60m

Profit £33m (which includes £56.5m profit on player sales - Berbatov to ManU and Keane's move to L'pool were a chunk of that)

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Aston Villas 2009 accounts have been filed today.

 

On turnover of £84m they racked up a loss of £46m. Thats quite a result 

 

Their wage bill is £70m, which is 83% of their turnover.

 

Lerner funded it all of course and has now invested a total of about £260m in the club.

 

 

 

Maybe Aston Villa isn't the club we should be looking to follow from then.

 

I'd love to see Spurs's accounts, despite what they say I just cannot see them having a low wage bill and making a profit.

 

Spurs 2009 accounts are also available.

 

Turnover £113m

Wage bill £60m

Profit £33m (which includes £56.5m profit on player sales - Berbatov to ManU and Keane's move to L'pool were a chunk of that)

 

 

Not had a full year of Harry impact yet though in those accounts (assuming they run to March or June??)

[quayside]

Aston Villas 2009 accounts have been filed today.

 

On turnover of £84m they racked up a loss of £46m. Thats quite a result 

 

Their wage bill is £70m, which is 83% of their turnover.

 

Lerner funded it all of course and has now invested a total of about £260m in the club.

 

 

 

Maybe Aston Villa isn't the club we should be looking to follow from then.

 

I'd love to see Spurs's accounts, despite what they say I just cannot see them having a low wage bill and making a profit.

 

Spurs 2009 accounts are also available.

 

Turnover £113m

Wage bill £60m

Profit £33m (which includes £56.5m profit on player sales - Berbatov to ManU and Keane's move to L'pool were a chunk of that)

 

 

Not had a full year of Harry impact yet though in those accounts (assuming they run to March or June??)

 

June

[Stifler]

Aston Villa’s 2009 accounts have been filed today.

 

On turnover of £84m they racked up a loss of £46m. That’s quite a result 

 

Their wage bill is £70m, which is 83% of their turnover.

 

Lerner funded it all of course and has now invested a total of about £260m in the club.

 

 

 

Maybe Aston Villa isn't the club we should be looking to follow from then.

 

I'd love to see Spurs's accounts, despite what they say I just cannot see them having a low wage bill and making a profit.

 

Spurs 2009 accounts are also available.

 

Turnover £113m

Wage bill £60m

Profit £33m (which includes £56.5m profit on player sales - Berbatov to ManU and Keane's move to L'pool were a chunk of that)

 

 

So if it wasn't for silly money being thrown at them then they would of been in a position where they would have been losing money basically. Also they have bought alot of players back, plus others, which I assume will be on higher wages the when they left, and the newsignings will also be on fairly high wages.

[Ocho]

The state that Portsmouth are in - is it reasonable to assume that Redknapp would have had a large influence on this with the players bought?  Defoe, Crouch, Campbell etc.

[Village Idiot]

Brum have lost 20m in their season in the CCC. Wonder how your own results will compare next year.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/03/05/SOCCER_Birmingham_Losses.html&TEAMHD=soccer

 

BLUES REVEAL COST OF RELEGATION

 

Birmingham have announced pre-tax losses of £20.5million and warned manager Alex McLeish of the "pitfalls" of the transfer market.

 

The losses for the financial year ending August 31, 2009, compared with the midlands club making a pre-tax profit of £4.5 million for the previous 12 months.

 

Blues experienced the big financial loss after being relegated from the Premier League at the end of the 2007-2008 campaign although they returned to the top flight at the first attempt last May under Alex McLeish.

 

And the club's audited financial statement blames the loss on "the decision taken by the previous members of the board to retain most of their playing staff from the previous Premier League season".

 

Previous owners David Sullivan and David Gold quit the club earlier this season and were replaced by Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung.

 

Blues splashed out £27.1million in wages in their successful bid to return to English football's elite.

 

And, during the promotion season, they also saw turnover from match receipts, broadcasting and commercial revenue drop by £22million.

 

The statement also hints that McLeish may have more limited funds to spend on new players in the summer.

 

It reads: "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs are deemed the core activity risk and, whilst assisting the manager in improving the playing squad, the board is mindful of the pitfalls that are inherent in this area of the business.

 

"The aim, therefore, is to manage the costs whilst being as competitive as possible with the club's financial restraints."

 

The current chairman seems critical of the previous board decision to keep an inflated wage bill, but that's probably one of the reasons they made it back at first attempt. Is 20m losses an acceptable price for promotion? (I think so if you can stabilize the club in the PL the following years)

[jdckelly]

Brum has lost €20m in his season in the CCC. Wonder how your own results will compare next year.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/03/05/SOCCER_Birmingham_Losses.html&TEAMHD=soccer

 

BLUES REVEAL COST OF RELEGATION

 

Birmingham have announced pre-tax losses of £20.5million and warned manager Alex McLeish of the "pitfalls" of the transfer market.

 

The losses for the financial year ending August 31, 2009, compared with the midlands club making a pre-tax profit of £4.5 million for the previous 12 months.

 

Blues experienced the big financial loss after being relegated from the Premier League at the end of the 2007-2008 campaign although they returned to the top flight at the first attempt last May under Alex McLeish.

 

And the club's audited financial statement blames the loss on "the decision taken by the previous members of the board to retain most of their playing staff from the previous Premier League season".

 

Previous owners David Sullivan and David Gold quit the club earlier this season and were replaced by Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung.

 

Blues splashed out £27.1million in wages in their successful bid to return to English football's elite.

 

And, during the promotion season, they also saw turnover from match receipts, broadcasting and commercial revenue drop by £22million.

 

The statement also hints that McLeish may have more limited funds to spend on new players in the summer.

 

It reads: "The acquisition of players and their related payroll costs are deemed the core activity risk and, whilst assisting the manager in improving the playing squad, the board is mindful of the pitfalls that are inherent in this area of the business.

 

"The aim, therefore, is to manage the costs whilst being as competitive as possible with the club's financial restraints."

 

The current chairman seems critical of the previous board decision to keep an inflated wage bill, but that's probably one of the reasons they made it back at first attempt. Is 20m losses an acceptable price for promotion? (I think so if you can stabilize the club in the PL the following years)

considering where brum are now it seems like a short term loss for long term gain. Bit surprised at the size of the loss though one thing gold and sullivan now at west ham always claimed to be good at is keeping a club in the black and its not like brum havent gone down then back up before.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Auditors from Deloitte have issued a going concern warning on the accounts of Hull City, the embattled Premier League Club facing relegation that this week sacked its manager.

 

The warning comes in accounts filed at Companies House at the weekend for the year ending 31 July 2009.

 

The directors report concedes the club’s financial position would be perilous if it is relegated at the end of the season with potential debts of £21m, in a worst case scenario. Debts would amount to £16, if the club manages to stay up.

 

The report focuses on uncertainty arising from being able to sell players to raise money and raising financing.

 

Hull has nine games in which to secure its future in the Premier League. An announcement on a new manager is expected shortly.

 

The existence of these material uncertainties may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern

Deloitte

 

Portsmouth recently became the first ever Premier Club to enter administration with more than £60m in debts

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2259558/hull-city-faces-going-concern

[madras]

why didn't they just borrow more ?

[Village Idiot]

Their playing squad is pretty big, must be a canny wage bill. Most of it is shit, mind.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7078254.ece

 

Game over for football’s sugar daddies

Matt Dickinson, Chief Sports Correspondent

 

English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour, face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals.

 

The extent of the crackdown on “financial doping”, championed by Michel Platini, the Uefa president, is laid bare in a 60-page document seen by The Times. In it, Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn.

 

Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored.

 

Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation” from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined.

 

In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million.

 

While Platini has talked for months about introducing “financial fair play”, the working draft has brought those proposals into sharp focus.

 

The European Club Association continues to haggle with Uefa for concessions. It is arguing for a five-year accounting period, rather than three, and for owners to be allowed to invest extra funds through equity rather than debt.

 

Platini is determined to bring in regulations that will mark a watershed in the English game.

 

While the proposals will be phased in over several years, many clubs will have to make significant changes — drastic in the cases of Chelsea and City — if they are not to fall foul of the new regulations and face a possible ban from European competition.

[Guest malandro]

When do NUFC’s last set of submitted results become public?

[Village Idiot]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7078254.ece

 

Game over for football’s sugar daddies

Matt Dickinson, Chief Sports Correspondent

 

English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour, face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals.

 

The extent of the crackdown on “financial doping”, championed by Michel Platini, the Uefa president, is laid bare in a 60-page document seen by The Times. In it, Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn.

 

Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored.

 

Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation” from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined.

 

In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million.

 

While Platini has talked for months about introducing “financial fair play”, the working draft has brought those proposals into sharp focus.

 

The European Club Association continues to haggle with Uefa for concessions. It is arguing for a five-year accounting period, rather than three, and for owners to be allowed to invest extra funds through equity rather than debt.

 

Platini is determined to bring in regulations that will mark a watershed in the English game.

 

While the proposals will be phased in over several years, many clubs will have to make significant changes — drastic in the cases of Chelsea and City — if they are not to fall foul of the new regulations and face a possible ban from European competition.

 

What would prevent them from paying, say, 100m for a shirt sponsorship and avoid these provisions?

[OzzieMandias]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7078254.ece

 

Game over for football’s sugar daddies

Matt Dickinson, Chief Sports Correspondent

 

English football’s super-rich owners, including Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour, face drastic curbs on their influence under Uefa proposals.

 

The extent of the crackdown on “financial doping”, championed by Michel Platini, the Uefa president, is laid bare in a 60-page document seen by The Times. In it, Uefa sets out its detailed plans to force clubs towards break-even, allowing them to spend only what they earn.

 

Owners would be allowed to inject cash to cover losses for a transitional period, but the amounts will be restricted and closely monitored.

 

Over the initial three-year period of regulation up to and including 2015, owners would be allowed to cover losses totalling "45 million (about £40 million). The “acceptable deviation” from break-even would then fall to £30 million over three years and then less, with the amount to be determined.

 

In other words, an owner such as Sheikh Mansour would eventually be permitted to put less than ¤10 million a year into Manchester City on average, unless the money is spent on infrastructure or the youth team, which have no limits on investment. That compares with City’s most recent loss of £89.69 million.

 

While Platini has talked for months about introducing “financial fair play”, the working draft has brought those proposals into sharp focus.

 

The European Club Association continues to haggle with Uefa for concessions. It is arguing for a five-year accounting period, rather than three, and for owners to be allowed to invest extra funds through equity rather than debt.

 

Platini is determined to bring in regulations that will mark a watershed in the English game.

 

While the proposals will be phased in over several years, many clubs will have to make significant changes — drastic in the cases of Chelsea and City — if they are not to fall foul of the new regulations and face a possible ban from European competition.

 

What would prevent them from paying, say, 100m for a shirt sponsorship and avoid these provisions?

 

Losing the shirt sponsorship income?

[Village Idiot]

Does Al-Mansoor really care about the 2m or so they get from Etihad?

[OzzieMandias]

Dunno, but Abramovich is supposedly trying to get to break-even point. Banging in money disguised as a shirt sponsorship means spending that money plus whatever an external sponsor might have paid -- in Chelsea's case certainly more than £2 million.

[Taylor Swift]

Taxes will prevent them from paying themselves stupid amounts of money to get around these laws.

[Village Idiot]

Taxes will prevent them from paying themselves stupid amounts of money to get around these laws.

 

Another thing they could do is what Espanyol did when they were broke and they were still fan-owned (so money couldn't be injected directly). Their sugar daddy bought players on his own accord and he loaned them to Espanyol free of charge.

 

What I mean with all this, is that this rule can probably easily be circumvented if someone really wants to.

[madras]

Taxes will prevent them from paying themselves stupid amounts of money to get around these laws.

 

Another thing they could do is what Espanyol did when they were broke and they were still fan-owned (so money couldn't be injected directly). Their sugar daddy bought players on his own accord and he loaned them to Espanyol free of charge.

 

What I mean with all this, is that this rule can probably easily be circumvented if someone really wants to.

or in the same way that clubs who have common ownership cant play each other (remember ENIC a while back) then a club couldn't be sponsored by a company with similar influence.

[Dave]

No reason, but:

 

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/salaries/default.aspx

	NFL	MLB	NBA
Player	Philip Rivers	Alex Rodriguez	Kevin Garnett
Team	San Diego Chargers	New York Yankees	Boston Celtics
Salary ($)	25,556,630	33,000,000	24,751,934
Salary (£)	17,152,102	22,147,653	16,612,038
Equivalent per week (£)	329,848	425,916	319,462

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

What about clubs such as us, will they be forced to fold when relegated if they can't sell their players for decent fees?

[Mick]

What about clubs such as us, will they be forced to fold when relegated if they can't sell their players for decent fees?

 

No, we'll not be allowed to play in Europe after relegation.