Wolves 22/23 accounts

[hollo]

We sold Corbeanu in january which helped a little with ffp.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

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.

 

[JamesWolves]

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.

Ooofta for Villa, they're forced to lose Luiz or Watkins then

 

[lets all have a disco]

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.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1763907801779433839

 

[Darvo]

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?

 

[Skrilla]

£120 million loss before the 23/24 season is even factored in. They basically broke even the year they sold Grealish (21/22). So they needed to make a £15m profit this season and they've kept spending. Their wage bill is absolutely astronomical as well.

I struggle to see how they'd be allowed to play in the Champions League with those losses to be honest, even if they do make a big sale before the end of the financial year. I think UEFA allows much smaller losses than the Premier League.

Once again, PSR/FFP only benefits the top six. Ambition is punished as reckless spending.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

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?

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.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

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.

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.

 

[Jawwfc]

Ooofta for Villa, they're forced to lose Luiz or Watkins then

I'd expect most likely will be ramsey given he is home grown, I believe City have a ridiculously (compared to current value) low buy backclause on him, although I think Nunes has taken the benchwarming role of Phillips.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

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.

Yep it has to be a guess. But Everton managed to get £371m down to something like £130m. Villa have had massive losses in the past and have yet to breach it.

Point being, getting £113m down to £105m should be a breeze even if we definitely haven't spent as much as Villa on the academy for example.

 

[Monketron]

PSR is real but it's also a nice excuse to placate fans as to why some owners aren't investing more.

 

[SilverstoneWolf]

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?

 

[Pagey]

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.

Can we give them 15 million for Watkins? Do the neighbourly thing like, and help them out a sticky situation?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Just randomly noticed that Villa are having a 13 month accounting year next time to finish in June and align with FFP/PSR.

 

[SilverstoneWolf]

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?

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

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?

He didn't say they should invest more, just that it was a nice excuse. Which, if what I've put on here is right, is exactly what it has been for us.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

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?

Well there are a lot of questions there! My take on it would be

Probably less ridiculous wages for players.
Probably lower transfer fees.
Probably therefore a bit less for agents.
Probably fewer elite foreign players, but that means a lesser league and therefore maybe a downward spiral.
Not shorter contracts as that increases amortisation costs.
Do players have any loyalty to clubs now?
Top managers will be more important if anything.
When was the game ever in the control of the working classes? Always been run by people with money.
TV companies and tickets will be priced to maximise revenue as ever.
None of this has anything to do with making the game more competitive. It's about maintaining the status quo.

 

[5 - Lescott]

Not Wolves related but…

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

What were villas losses the previous two seasons ?

Surely kicked out Europe next season on this basis?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

What were villas losses the previous two seasons ?

Surely kicked out Europe next season on this basis?

Some losses on ground improvements but according to the statement.

During this financial year, the Club has invested a further £63.7m in the acquisition of new players whilst also generating a profit of over £22m from player sales. This investment is part of the reason why employee wage costs rose to £194.2m (up from £137m). The amortisation of player contracts also increased by £10m to £92.5m reflecting the increased investment in playing staff.

Revenue £217m a big increase.

So in simple terms (oh if any of it was ever simple)

Player costs = 92.5+194-22= 266.5
Revenue = 217
Costs/ revenue = 123%

Take away some of those staff costs, but surely not enough to get to 90%

 

[WickedWolfie]

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?

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!

 

[Bryce]

PSR is real but it's also a nice excuse to placate fans as to why some owners aren't investing more.

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 be
The buy young , develop, sell for profit model is where we are and will be for the foreseeable. Like it or lump it it’s not changing

Neto Kilman and Gomes will be next with probably 139m in the coffers. They will spend 40m on replacing them and the cycle starts again.

Hope it works

 

[brianm]

Fosun have pushed just about to the limit with what they have invested in the last few years. It's just their money was used so poorly in several high-profile cases. There isn't that much room to mess up that badly, as we are all seeing now with this increased scrutiny.

When you look back at it, the way they handled January 23 and last summer was pretty brave. If the business they were able to do with their posture last summer wasn't so strong, things would be dire. But they took the risks and paid a lot for the players they picked in January anyway, and it has worked out reasonably well. That took some trust in January.

 

[Monketron]

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?

But why shouldn't fans want more? we have no power, whomever buys a club will do so, fans have no say and you just have to sit and hope you don't get bought by con men who just want to destroy the club to enrich themselves, or saddle the club with too much debt chasing the dream. I don't think it's bad to always push owners to spend more, no ones forcing them, we're just asking!

I personally think we've lucked out with getting Fosun, even if they weren't the 'Chelsea like' free spending owners we might have originally thought they were. They've invested more than adequately into the team, even if some of the signings have failed the last couple of years. They cover our debt and even turn it into equity which ultimately protects the club long term.

My main issue with them has been their unwillingness to build a new stadium - which will be the only way we'll ever really be able to legally push our spending.

 

[Northampton_wolf]

All crazy really as we dont know the PSR numbers i can summise and guess as another poster who is an accountant suggests we have no clue.

We dont know the breakdown of wages etc, but we can see some key things like future potential liabiities etc.

Think the key details we can pick out are turnover has been on the rise for wolves and expected to go up again this year.

We ideally want turnover to wages at c 70%

FYI - financial adviser is what i do, means squat as im not an accountant and dont claim to be, but its clear, we cant be certain on everton/villa figures etc and whats been written off, as we dont see whats presented to the league for PSR reporting purposes

But it would seem we shouldbnt be close as we are still under the 105m without write off and allowables

But given we arent putting anything in to the stadium, i dont think we are writing much off

 

[Darvo]

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.

There’s a real lack of clarity and openness with all of this. It’s difficult to see the wood for the trees.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

There’s a real lack of clarity and openness with all of this. It’s difficult to see the wood for the trees.

No that's an easy one. The Trees definitely broke PSR when they signed Wood.

 

[SA Wolf]

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

 

[WickedWolfie]

No that's an easy one. The Trees definitely broke PSR when they signed Wood.

I don't be-leaf it....

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

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

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?

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

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!

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

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!

Im no expert,but as i see it your correct as to the club accounts they are what they are
FFP/PSR are more subjective with allowable deductions such as Academy,Womens Teams,Infrastructure upgrades,even Covid for the 20/21 season all deductable,probably more exceptions with creative accounting im sure
Villa are way over the 3 year rolling losses with a £38 mil loss then a 300k profit now this £120 mil loss puts them over £50 mil above the limit,but they seem to think they are just ok,quite how i have no idea

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

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 appears that for FFP/PSR purposes you can make adjustments that aren't within normal accounting standards.

The accounts submitted to Companies House has to follow accepted accounting standards and the tax return submitted to HMRC has to conform with the relevant Corporation Tax legislation and HMRC guidance.

FFP/PSR is an artificial set of standards adopted by football but aren't based on the Companies Act 2006 or CT legislation. So football clubs can get away with adjustments for this purpose but those adjustments won't be valid for Corporation Tax purposes or for complying with the Companies Act

 

[Northampton_wolf]

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 much

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

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!

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.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

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.

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?

 

[Northampton_wolf]

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.

I think we need to buy into this a little now we expect the loss isnt going to be big as 39m due to higher league performance than 17th and cup runs.

But 22m minus

lets say that of the 46.1m and 67m we have the same proportion of write off

Write off prediction 23/34 (43.5%)

If we extrapolate that to the other years

21/22 - Minus 26m
22/23 Minus 37.85m
23/24 - Minus 22m


Total -85m well within 105m

lets say its more just a value

so 17m write off consistent each year

21/22 - minus 29m
22/23 - Minus 50m
23/24 minus 22m

Minus 101m

Still within 105m but tight

Its likely its more this, remember projections based off 17th position and not as much a cup run, tv appearances.

So likely i reckon we will be more likely after PSR deductions Minus 15m

So with the 90 million 10m within the threshold, and that would have been the signing for yuri alberto

 

[Northampton_wolf]

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?

Our turnover isnt big enough, to withstand JLs wages and pay off.

Willb e better next year dont have it, and most of the big wages cut off,

Still transfer expenditure included in this year (Amoritsation, jonny pay off etc) plus potential future liabilites which looks like performance and appearance related terms for existing players, which i expect with avoiding relegation this year and a cup run will need to be paid too

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

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?

Yeah I don't get it either.

The only guess I had was that they didn't put player sales/profit on the forecast as they couldn't be sure who would be sold and for what price. If you add £50-60m (or whatever it was) to the total, then it would like more in line with what we'd expect?

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

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.

How on Earth are we making a loss of any size this season?
We have the Neves and Nunez money plus a huge drop on the wage bill a decent cup run etc
If we cant make a profit this season we are royally ****ed