OutByEaster? Posted February 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2012 I haven't really had a chance to take these numbers in, but if we made more money that we've ever made at £92m and we benefitted from a cash injection from the owner of £25m and we made a loss of £54m does that mean our outgoings are £171m? Where the hell are we spending £171m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I seriously fear for the future of the club now This Lerner experiment is rapidly descending into a nightmare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Jesus calm down people and get over the headline. Are many here from a financial background just out of interest, I personally am and given the timing of the annual accounts and whats gone on dont think they look that bad at all having done some maths. Would like to see the actual accounts before commenting further though. I'd be interested on what basis you consider them "not bad". Do you work for the Greek government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 12m on manager changed, looks like Mon did get a psyout to leave afterall despite walking out The club and MO'N agreed, according to an accountant I know, £1 million as a settlement, mutually negotiated. MO'N and the club came to whatever agreement AFTER May - just before he took over at Sunderland. So logically whatever amount was agreed on, would not be in those figures. Might they not have made a provision in these accounts for some sort of payment to O'Neill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 12m on manager changed, looks like Mon did get a psyout to leave afterall despite walking out The club and MO'N agreed, according to an accountant I know, £1 million as a settlement, mutually negotiated. MO'N and the club came to whatever agreement AFTER May - just before he took over at Sunderland. So logically whatever amount was agreed on, would not be in those figures. Might they not have made a provision in these accounts for some sort of payment to O'Neill? Yes, especially if they knew just after the year end that they'd got a stiffing in the tribunal. The case might have been settled after the year end, but essentially the liability arose when O'Neill's contract ended, so they'd have had to report it in the correct period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dchitz Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Jesus calm down people and get over the headline. Are many here from a financial background just out of interest, I personally am and given the timing of the annual accounts and whats gone on dont think they look that bad at all having done some maths. Would like to see the actual accounts before commenting further though. I'd be interested on what basis you consider them "not bad". Do you work for the Greek government? To be honest I had expected worse given the club had fallen out of the DML top 20....wasnt sure how much by and that two managers and backroom staff had been disposed of and high spends on players, As I said I havent seen the accounts but reckon the club could of been on the right track had the correct manager been appointed, Dont get me wrong its not good, but I dont think this set of numbers is what has the club at massive risk to be honest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2012 £8m towards the debt, £12m to paying off managers, £18m on Bent - anyone care to estimate our wage bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The shareholders' funds were £21m in 2010. Add in the reported £25m injection for shares from Lerner, and that's £46m. Deduct the £54m loss and that's MINUS £8m. Disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 28, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 28, 2012 I haven't really had a chance to take these numbers in, but if we made more money that we've ever made at £92m and we benefitted from a cash injection from the owner of £25m and we made a loss of £54m does that mean our outgoings are £171m? Where the hell are we spending £171m? I wasn't sure whether the £25m injection was included or excluded from the figures. But yes, it's either £171m or £146m As for where we're spending it, I'm not sure. We only really spent £18m on Bent. Wages? Who knows, £75m I'd guess based on previous estimations of it being about 80% of income (from memory). £12m for manager changes That leaves about £40-60m Doesn't really add up so I'm obviously getting something wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2012 The shareholders' funds were £21m in 2010. Add in the reported £25m injection for shares from Lerner, and that's £46m. Deduct the £54m loss and that's MINUS £8m. Disastrous. I'm not sure I understand this - we started with £21m in the bag, added £25m then lost £54 to finish with an £8m hole? Why would we pay off £8m to the banks just to finish £8m in the red? It's a strange form of black magic you financial types practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So we're unsustainably overpaying an underachieving squad that are competing at the sharp end with Wolves, QPR, Swansea etc. Between the financial mismanagement, the football mismanagement and the over-the-top football phone ins we're a joke of a club at the moment. I'm beginning to lose faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The shareholders' funds were £21m in 2010. Add in the reported £25m injection for shares from Lerner, and that's £46m. Deduct the £54m loss and that's MINUS £8m. Disastrous. I'm not sure I understand this - we started with £21m in the bag, added £25m then lost £54 to finish with an £8m hole? Why would we pay off £8m to the banks just to finish £8m in the red? It's a strange form of black magic you financial types practice. You need to understand what goes in the P&L, what goes in the balance sheet and what's cash flow. Eg the £18m Bent cost hasn't increased the loss, but his wages and amortisation will have. Shareholders' funds aren't the same as cash, it's effectively the net asset value of the company, ie assets less liabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2012 So in a nutshell, our liabilities are now more than our assets and we've spent a fortune with absolutely nothing to show for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 £18m on Bent Figure in accounts for Bent wouldn't be that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So in a nutshell, our liabilities are now more than our assets and we've spent a fortune with absolutely nothing to show for it? What's killing me is that our 'bright future' is very much on pause until we can sort this mess out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Robin Russell "we are pleased with the positive trends in our financial performance" You really couldn't make it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2012 what does "shareholders funds" actually mean, in that context, Mart? I understand tangible assets - buildings, land, cars, machinery etc. I understand intangible assets (which seem like their value can in some cases be stated at a figure that doesn't necessarily reflect their actual value. Presumably the tangibles plus the intangibles (incl players) have a total book value, and then all the liabilities have another value, and the net value of the business is what ever that adds up to. If the income can't cope with paying the interest on the debts, then you're in deep water - isn't that broadly it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Pretty sure it was commented at the time we gave Houllier a very generous deal to come out of retirement. He signed a contract for 3 years and pretty sure he was on 2-3m a year. The figures don't look good but tbf as others have said Downing and Young sales not included nor their wages or those of Friedel, NRC, L. Young, Carew etc coming off the wage bill so I'd be more interested to see the situation 6 months down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 If Villa were a publicly traded entity, shareholders would be calling for heads to roll at this news. The CFO can spin things all he wants, but really these numbers prove what most of us have known for some time now- That they don't know what they're doing... Time to sell up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So in a nutshell, our liabilities are now more than our assets and we've spent a fortune with absolutely nothing to show for it? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts