I haven’t seen them for myself, but the link is here;
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-still-made-loss-8711554
Apparently, we lost £4 million and I quite frankly don’t believe a word of it.
I’ve previously suggested that the previous losses have been over exaggerated and now more recent accounts will be under-quoted to address the balance.
Which is all perfectly legal, as long as the books balance over time.
Or at least that’s my understanding, where I’d appreciate it if any accountants could finally put me straight on this point, as I’ve suggested it a few times, but have never had a decent answer.
At a glance things just don’t make sense and I know I’m countering my own argument here at first glance, but how have corporate incomes gone up, when we get the Likes of Bill Pearson, with his knowledge, telling us that there are loads of empty boxes compared to a while back?
Then there’s the increased sponsorship income.
Where’s that come from?
Is it really a fact that the most prominent sponsor, Dafabet paid more than the previous sponsor?
If that’s the case, I don’t remember the club shouting about it and it just doesn’t make sense anyway. The club hadn’t improved in the general football sense and probably got worse, after all.
These are typical examples of how you could make the figures look better to redress the previously overstated losses, is what I’m getting at.
I don’t know; I need to look at the details, but I at least find them “interesting” and would appreciate your views.
More Aston Villa News And Views Conspiracy Theories.
Do we really give a monkeys??
Personally Helenius, you should give a monkey’s, imo.
If I’m right, the hierarchy overstated the financial situation to justify the massive cut in wages and transfer money.
While of course the only thing that matters to us fans is what’s going on on the pitch, don’t you think the two are related?
Especially when we all know that the amount of money put into a club in any one season directly affects the league position, on the whole?
There’s no conspiracy either.
Accounts can be twisted and my money says that that’s what’s happened.
Of course, I could be wrong.
But if I’m right, do you think that’s fair?
Badger is Lerner fiddling the books then??
Giddy, no, I’m not suggesting that at all. That would be illegal.
What I’m suggesting is that the figures have been made to look like they are to suit an agenda.
How many times have we heard the argument on here that “we have to cut costs” in defence of Lerner?
You can offset stuff in the accounts and it’s all perfectly legal, as long as the figures balance out over time.
I don’t think for one minute anyone associated with the club is crooked, I must emphasise that point.
Mate there still no being honest then??
Not*
Depends what you mean by honest.
Telling the truth as it is at any particular moment?
Or putting stuff off or even bringing it forward?
What I’m saying is, it suited us to be seen as making a bigger loss than we actually were, to make us side with the view that costs had to be massacred.
Indeed, it worked with some fans who were totally on his side a season or two back, you might remember?
Of course, if I’m right, the figures will have to be corrected over time and we’ll probably see a bumper profit in the next couple of years.
How the accountants will achieve that is beyond me, but you can bet your boots that those accountants get paid way more than my tradesman’s income 🙂
That’s why I’m only making an educated guess at things.
Ok then how’s about being deceitful??that’s a form of twisting the truth.
Have you missed the news about tax avoidance recently???? Villa make a loss, they pay no tax. Villa make a profit, they pay tax. Ask Starbucks…
that is great news innit, we will be the best run championship club next year.
p.s how long does charles insomnia have left on his contract, can’t you sack a player without paying um for the remaining contract. these players don’t know they are born. wished i was good enough to get a contract like these players and sit tight for the duration and give nothing back
Nath, you’re missing the point.
Yes, we have a couple of players on that money, but not many.
Wages have been cut massively, imo, but I suppose some won’t believe that point either, which is fair enough.
The fact is, from what I’ve seen and read, on the whole, in prem terms, we pay our players buttons.
Yet still, we’re losing money?
I don’t believe it.
I forget what Vlaar is currently being paid, but I believe it’s £20k a week?
I had it on decent authority that he was only offered the same money to re-sign.
Admittedly, that’s not a good example after Saturday, but this is still pennies for a Premier league defender.
That tells you what the club is about, imo.
i aint missing any point 😛 i am pissed at players that are getting 50k 60k 70k wot ever nzogs on. hes not earned one penny. the guys missed a fullseason with a sicknote and this is a another where hes not played any contribution. iam betting this must be the worst signing since blaban or curcic
as for your conspiracies, i couldn’t give a flying fook whos getting the money. cos i know the fans aren’t. the trash that’s the villa product on the field, isn’t worth 99% of the price they are charging.
i’ll leave you to keep to the facts of badgers world, your on the payroll at villa. so you can speak with more authority, i will speak my trash talk on wot pisses me off
What’s happened to all this so called TV money????
The accounts only go up to May ’14, so they wouldn’t have kicked in would they?
Assuming you’re on about the EXTRA £30 mill a season that we didn’t bother investing this season, that is?
We’re probably saving that to counter IF we go down this season.
Won’t we get parachute payments if we did get R’d??
Yes, but it’s a fraction of what we currently get.
Perhaps we’re just setting ourselves up for the championship?
Only joking there.
On a brighter note, I was speaking to a Bristol City fan today, who remembered us being in Div 3.
He said the crowds we took with us were just outrageous and we even overtook the city centre of a city of Bristol’s size !
Made me smile, that comment 🙂
That’s something that never seems to change whatever’s going on at the club the away supporters.ahhh those were the day’s mate.
Was it 60,000 at Villa Park for the Bournemouth game and we lost to two goals by Ted McDougall? Or am I dreaming!
48,000 and we won 2 – 1. Those were the days, a full house and more than 1 goal!
Yes you are it was 48,000 and we won 2.1 mcdougal did get their goal though!
Yes Ted’s was a great goal but Andy Lochead’s was far greater – ‘Andy, Andy in the air..’
Old age and senility I’m afraid!
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gossip-aston-villa-sold-secret-8708220
Sounds like more bollox to me.
good job i never wrote it then lmao
gonna watch a decent game lmao city and barca and city are playing 442 should be interesting leave you guys with your x files
Can’t stand x files that’s also bollox.
Most of this will be accounting bullshit. Remember the so called staggering loss we made a couple of years back, when over £50 million of that ‘loss’ turned out to be ‘depreciation’ on a number of players, whci I think Villa are insured against anyway…
You can’t insure yourself on depreciation of players. You can only insure yourself for them being forced to retire through injury.
Depreciation is a real loss of value. Buy a player on a 4 year contract for £10 million (I wish!). You depreciate his value across that period as he can leave for nothing at the end of the contract, so you might show a loss of £2.5 million per year on him.
You buy a car for £10K and sell it for £5K you have lost £5K through depreciation.
I haven’t looked at the accounts but the same process will be happening, just getting easier year on year. Given the losses up to date there is no reason for the club to show a made up loss for last year at a time when they are trying to sell.
Next years accounts should show a profit based on last year’s improvement.
But isn’t the way it’s labelled as amortisation mean it’s a different accounting formula than regular depreciation?
I think the difference (between depreciation and amortisation) relates to the type of capital expenditure (eg you would depreciate say motor vehicles but amortise acquisition of say a lease) and how the revenue allow you to write off that capital expenditure through the I & E account – but I’m no accountant!
Should have added amortisation is spreading a capital cost over a number of years whereas depreciation is writing down the cost of an asset over a number of years in recognition of its depreciating value. There are rules in regard to what you can depreciate by how much and over how many years dependant on the type of asset.
on a different note can you hear the holte singing this http://youtu.be/MMnSZIqra7M
Hope not its Shit
Not a bad song. But it has no swear-words so, no, I can’t hear the Holte singing it.
There is a double reduction in Corporation Tax for large companies between 2 years ago, last year and the current year. For profit making companies it made sense to hold back profits if possible and put them in a year with a lower tax rate. I suppose, though I cannot right now see how, there might be an advantage to moving losses around.
Not sure you’re allowed to ‘hold back profits’ other than through making provisions for known debt or risky income and also it makes sense to take losses as they fall as you can roll over unused losses into future years and offset corporation tax.