@owlstalk Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 #SWFC figures here from @KieranMaguire who is a lecturer on football finance Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Am I reading this right? Aston Villa have spent nigh on £115m in 2016/2017? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckwheat Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Think it means Villa had Income of £73.8m and losses of £41.1 so had a net profit of £32.7m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Buckwheat said: Think it means Villa had Income of £73.8m and losses of £41.1 so had a net profit of £32.7m. I think you are wrong because, using the same logic, it would give us a couple of million profit in the same period. Chansiri would take that I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Buckwheat said: Think it means Villa had Income of £73.8m and losses of £41.1 so had a net profit of £32.7m. I think the losses are just that, losses. If Villas income was £74M and they lost £41M they must have spent £115M, or summat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Buckwheat said: Think it means Villa had Income of £73.8m and losses of £41.1 so had a net profit of £32.7m. That is some serious accounting black magic there mate...... Edited May 17, 2018 by Morepork 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torryowl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) those figures show how unfair it is to compete against clubs with parachute payments ....reading and QPR with an income £ 25 million above ours. Edited May 17, 2018 by torryowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) don't think they include transfer dealings do they.??I Why we are all good on them. Edited May 17, 2018 by pazowl55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said: I think you are wrong because, using the same logic, it would give us a couple of million profit in the same period. Chansiri would take that I reckon. By my logic ( which may be wrong) it would have meant we spent circa £40m, had income of c£20 and a net loss of c£20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 I love graphs 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, prowl said: I think the losses are just that, losses. If Villas income was £74M and they lost £41M they must have spent £115M, or summat. that's how I am reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OxonOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 If correct Villa are truly FFPed if they don't go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, OxonOwl said: By my logic ( which may be wrong) it would have meant we spent circa £40m, had income of c£20 and a net loss of c£20 Seems pretty much in line with what was reported in the annual accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonowl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 I know we all know this already but when half of Championship clubs spend more on wages alone than their turnover, it really is all f***ed. SWFC paying £126 in wages for every £100 of income. By my maths, that means we lose around £6m a season before we pay a single bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, OxonOwl said: If correct Villa are truly FFPed if they don't go up. They get 4 years of not caring about FFP parachute payments now last 4 years this is the complete joke of the whole system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, londonowl said: I know we all know this already but when half of Championship clubs spend more on wages alone than their turnover, it really is all f***ed. SWFC paying £126 in wages for every £100 of income. By my maths, that means we lose around £6m a season before we pay a single bill. When you take rhodes, abdi and fletcher there combined salary are over £5m a season not including fees you can see why our losses are so high this last season £5m bought us about 10 goals between the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, torryowl said: those figures show how unfair it is to compete against clubs with parachute payments ....reading and QPR with an income £ 25 million above ours. Neither of these clubs had parachute payments for the season listed did they? They were both relegated in the 12/13 season, and I was under the impression parachute payments last for three years... meaning their final season of them would have been in 15/16. Or am I talking out my bum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torryowl Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, StudentOwl said: Neither of these clubs had parachute payments for the season listed did they? They were both relegated in the 12/13 season, and I was under the impression parachute payments last for three years... meaning their final season of them would have been in 15/16. Or am I talking out my bum? i don't know I just assumed that clubs that size couldn't generate that sort of income ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: Neither of these clubs had parachute payments for the season listed did they? They were both relegated in the 12/13 season, and I was under the impression parachute payments last for three years... meaning their final season of them would have been in 15/16. Or am I talking out my bum? Wasn't it 4 years then it changed to 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daizan10 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, OxonOwl said: If correct Villa are truly FFPed if they don't go up. Remember its over 3 years. 1 of those they were in the premier league. So as long as they made a decent profit that year they might be ok. We need to see the full three year picture to know for sure. But I kinda hope they are well out of it. Edited May 17, 2018 by Daizan10 Snorkles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now