Aston Villa post near £120million loss for 2022-23 season
Villa have reported a club record post-tax operating loss of nearly £120million for the 2022-23 season.www.expressandstar.com
Villa still not failed PSR (yet).
This reinforces the idea that our losses are nowhere near as bad as highlighted because they don't include the deductions (which have saved Villa at the moment). So, we're nowhere near I would imagine.
Aston Villa post near £120million loss for 2022-23 season
Villa have reported a club record post-tax operating loss of nearly £120million for the 2022-23 season.www.expressandstar.com
Villa still not failed PSR (yet).
This reinforces the idea that our losses are nowhere near as bad as highlighted because they don't include the deductions (which have saved Villa at the moment). So, we're nowhere near I would imagine.
My understanding is that the 20-21 and 22-23 losses of £46m & £67m respectively (for Wolves) were after deductions and effectively the figures used for FFP reporting. Is that not the case?Aston Villa post near £120million loss for 2022-23 season
Villa have reported a club record post-tax operating loss of nearly £120million for the 2022-23 season.www.expressandstar.com
Villa still not failed PSR (yet).
This reinforces the idea that our losses are nowhere near as bad as highlighted because they don't include the deductions (which have saved Villa at the moment). So, we're nowhere near I would imagine.
I asked that earlier and Northampton Wolf said no.My understanding is that the 20-21 and 22-23 losses of £46m & £67m respectively (for Wolves) were after deductions and effectively the figures used for FFP reporting. Is that not the case?
Yes, that's my understanding, they are filed accounts, probably never find out if it wasn't a legal responsibility. Working out how much can be allowed as not counting towards PSR is an educated guess at best.I asked that earlier and Northampton Wolf said no.
From what I can see, all clubs just announce their overall losses. So it's hard to see how we're even close to breaking the rules.
Ooofta for Villa, they're forced to lose Luiz or Watkins then
Yes, that's my understanding, they are filed accounts, probably never find out if it wasn't a legal responsibility. Working out how much can be allowed as not counting towards PSR is an educated guess at best.
Can we give them 15 million for Watkins? Do the neighbourly thing like, and help them out a sticky situation?Aston Villa post near £120million loss for 2022-23 season
Villa have reported a club record post-tax operating loss of nearly £120million for the 2022-23 season.www.expressandstar.com
Villa still not failed PSR (yet).
This reinforces the idea that our losses are nowhere near as bad as highlighted because they don't include the deductions (which have saved Villa at the moment). So, we're nowhere near I would imagine.
Why SHOULD owners 'invest more'? It is NOT 'investment' (apart from in a very small number of clubs). It is a great way to have a high profile, and to lose millions.PSR is real but it's also a nice excuse to placate fans as to why some owners aren't investing more.
Why SHOULD owners 'invest more'? It is NOT 'investment' (apart from in a very small number of clubs). It is a great way to have a high profile, and to lose millions.
(The owner of Wasps RFC has lost over £30m of his own money in trying to keep that club afloat)
Why do fans always expect 'someone else' (the owner) to splash out THEIR money, when the 'fan' goes into meltdown when ticket prices for - say - a Cup game are 'expensive'? Or STs are raised by more than inflation? We are ALL very good at telling other people how to spend THEIR money. Perhaps we ain't so keen when our next-door neighbour comes and tells US how to spend OURS?
Well there are a lot of questions there! My take on it would beI wish I understood where all this is leading....
Lower wages? Lower transfer fees? Less money drained by 'agents'? Less overseas players attracted by the big bucks? Shorter contracts for players (max 3 years)? Less loyalty to clubs by players? Bonuses for those who choose to stay & renew shorter contracts? Reduced ridiculous wages for managers? Less 'pay-off' for the manager and his entourage? Fewer in the entourage?
Why is the game of the 'working classes' now becoming the preserve of the financially advantaged? I assume none of this will make watching games in the stadia or buying subscriptions to TV channels/streamers any cheaper. But if the long-term goal is to make football more competitive that is surely a good thing?
The problem now is how do you make it so that THE REST of us can catch up with the 'big 6' (financially) in the first place?
Some losses on ground improvements but according to the statement.What were villas losses the previous two seasons ?
Surely kicked out Europe next season on this basis?
Re your last para l'm afraid that your question is incredibly naive - the whole system is designed to keep the current top teams there!I wish I understood where all this is leading....
Lower wages? Lower transfer fees? Less money drained by 'agents'? Less overseas players attracted by the big bucks? Shorter contracts for players (max 3 years)? Less loyalty to clubs by players? Bonuses for those who choose to stay & renew shorter contracts? Reduced ridiculous wages for managers? Less 'pay-off' for the manager and his entourage? Fewer in the entourage?
Why is the game of the 'working classes' now becoming the preserve of the financially advantaged? I assume none of this will make watching games in the stadia or buying subscriptions to TV channels/streamers any cheaper. But if the long-term goal is to make football more competitive that is surely a good thing?
The problem now is how do you make it so that THE REST of us can catch up with the 'big 6' (financially) in the first place?
Fosun always stated self sufficiency. Whilst I would love to sign Mbappe , Nemar or Ronaldo the club have been open , honest and transparent with where we are and where we want to bePSR is real but it's also a nice excuse to placate fans as to why some owners aren't investing more.
Why SHOULD owners 'invest more'? It is NOT 'investment' (apart from in a very small number of clubs). It is a great way to have a high profile, and to lose millions.
(The owner of Wasps RFC has lost over £30m of his own money in trying to keep that club afloat)
Why do fans always expect 'someone else' (the owner) to splash out THEIR money, when the 'fan' goes into meltdown when ticket prices for - say - a Cup game are 'expensive'? Or STs are raised by more than inflation? We are ALL very good at telling other people how to spend THEIR money. Perhaps we ain't so keen when our next-door neighbour comes and tells US how to spend OURS?
There’s a real lack of clarity and openness with all of this. It’s difficult to see the wood for the trees.I asked that earlier and Northampton Wolf said no.
From what I can see, all clubs just announce their overall losses. So it's hard to see how we're even close to breaking the rules.
No that's an easy one. The Trees definitely broke PSR when they signed Wood.There’s a real lack of clarity and openness with all of this. It’s difficult to see the wood for the trees.
I don't be-leaf it....No that's an easy one. The Trees definitely broke PSR when they signed Wood.
Based on the report their wages to turnover ration was 89% so within the rules for that season but doesn't it have to be 80% or below next season to be within PSR? If so then I don't see how they will be able to sign anyone in the summer without a few sales first. They'll surely have to sell anyway to reduce their wage bill?Villa lost £120m last year, but believe it within PSR rules;
Aston Villa report almost £120m losses in one season
Aston Villa report a loss of £119.6m in their latest accounts up to 31 May 2023.www.bbc.com
Im no expert,but as i see it your correct as to the club accounts they are what they areI confess I don’t begin to understand FFP/PSR (well I understand the bare bones of what it’s there for but certainly not the mechanics behind it).
Would genuinely like someone who understands it more to correct me but it feels to me like the companies house figures are very much “black and white” and can’t really be messed with too much unless you want HMRC investigating but FFP/PSR seems more “grey” with club accountants being more “creative” with them.
Am I remotely right or just peeing in the wind? It feels waaaaay above my pay grade!
It appears that for FFP/PSR purposes you can make adjustments that aren't within normal accounting standards.I confess I don’t begin to understand FFP/PSR (well I understand the bare bones of what it’s there for but certainly not the mechanics behind it).
Would genuinely like someone who understands it more to correct me but it feels to me like the companies house figures are very much “black and white” and can’t really be messed with too much unless you want HMRC investigating but FFP/PSR seems more “grey” with club accountants being more “creative” with them.
Am I remotely right or just peeing in the wind? It feels waaaaay above my pay grade!
Pretty muchI confess I don’t begin to understand FFP/PSR (well I understand the bare bones of what it’s there for but certainly not the mechanics behind it).
Would genuinely like someone who understands it more to correct me but it feels to me like the companies house figures are very much “black and white” and can’t really be messed with too much unless you want HMRC investigating but FFP/PSR seems more “grey” with club accountants being more “creative” with them.
Am I remotely right or just peeing in the wind? It feels waaaaay above my pay grade!
I confess I don’t begin to understand FFP/PSR (well I understand the bare bones of what it’s there for but certainly not the mechanics behind it).
Would genuinely like someone who understands it more to correct me but it feels to me like the companies house figures are very much “black and white” and can’t really be messed with too much unless you want HMRC investigating but FFP/PSR seems more “grey” with club accountants being more “creative” with them.
Am I remotely right or just peeing in the wind? It feels waaaaay above my pay grade!
It's just impossible for me to understand.Yes, I believe so.
Each club announces their losses every year which are black and white as you say. There are links to their respective accounts and it has to be right for that accounting period.
With PSR it's a lot more complex as we don't know what the 'allowable expenses' exactly entail, which opens room for them to be 'creative' as you put it.
For example, of Villa's £120m loss, the Express & Star journalist has said that £56m of it will be deducted for PSR purposes.
With Wolves, Madeley has said we are forecasting to announce a loss of £39m for 2023/24, but when 'allowable expenses are removed' the loss is £22m for PSR.
(We don't know how the £39m loss figure is true, but the point is highlighting how much you can get it down.)
Everton recorded losses of £371m over a three-year period (needs to be £105m), which brought the charge. However, they were eventually done for losses of £124.5m. They're accused of being the most 'creative' as you can tell by the figures...
With all of that in mind, it's genuinely hard to fathom how Wolves are/were even close at all to breaching the rules.
With Wolves, Madeley has said we are forecasting to announce a loss of £39m for 2023/24, but when 'allowable expenses are removed' the loss is £22m for PSR.Yes, I believe so.
Each club announces their losses every year which are black and white as you say. There are links to their respective accounts and it has to be right for that accounting period.
With PSR it's a lot more complex as we don't know what the 'allowable expenses' exactly entail, which opens room for them to be 'creative' as you put it.
For example, of Villa's £120m loss, the Express & Star journalist has said that £56m of it will be deducted for PSR purposes.
With Wolves, Madeley has said we are forecasting to announce a loss of £39m for 2023/24, but when 'allowable expenses are removed' the loss is £22m for PSR.
(We don't know how the £39m loss figure is true, but the point is highlighting how much you can get it down.)
Everton recorded losses of £371m over a three-year period (needs to be £105m), which brought the charge. However, they were eventually done for losses of £124.5m. They're accused of being the most 'creative' as you can tell by the figures...
With all of that in mind, it's genuinely hard to fathom how Wolves are/were even close at all to breaching the rules.
Our turnover isnt big enough, to withstand JLs wages and pay off.It's just impossible for me to understand.
For instance, Wolves’ current forecasts for the 2023-24 season predict a loss of £39.7million, but when allowable expenses are removed from the equation, it would leave Wolves with a predicted loss of £22m for PSR purposes.
When allowable expenses are taken into account, current predictions would leave Wolves staying within the £105million limit by £2.7m for the three years ending in May 2024.
I mean two questions for a start.
How is that having been told we need to turn a profit this season (to match the 20/21 figure) somehow we can now make a £22m loss?
How is it that having cut wages by tens of millions and made a huge transfer profit, we can still be expecting to make a loss?
It's just impossible for me to understand.
For instance, Wolves’ current forecasts for the 2023-24 season predict a loss of £39.7million, but when allowable expenses are removed from the equation, it would leave Wolves with a predicted loss of £22m for PSR purposes.
When allowable expenses are taken into account, current predictions would leave Wolves staying within the £105million limit by £2.7m for the three years ending in May 2024.
I mean two questions for a start.
How is that having been told we need to turn a profit this season (to match the 20/21 figure) somehow we can now make a £22m loss?
How is it that having cut wages by tens of millions and made a huge transfer profit, we can still be expecting to make a loss?
How on Earth are we making a loss of any size this season?Yes, I believe so.
Each club announces their losses every year which are black and white as you say. There are links to their respective accounts and it has to be right for that accounting period.
With PSR it's a lot more complex as we don't know what the 'allowable expenses' exactly entail, which opens room for them to be 'creative' as you put it.
For example, of Villa's £120m loss, the Express & Star journalist has said that £56m of it will be deducted for PSR purposes.
With Wolves, Madeley has said we are forecasting to announce a loss of £39m for 2023/24, but when 'allowable expenses are removed' the loss is £22m for PSR.
(We don't know how the £39m loss figure is true, but the point is highlighting how much you can get it down.)
Everton recorded losses of £371m over a three-year period (needs to be £105m), which brought the charge. However, they were eventually done for losses of £124.5m. They're accused of being the most 'creative' as you can tell by the figures...
With all of that in mind, it's genuinely hard to fathom how Wolves are/were even close at all to breaching the rules.