Jump to content
IGNORED

ASTON VILLA The taxman requests


E.G.Red

Recommended Posts

Interesting listening to Simon Jordan on Talksport talking about the Villa situation

( He’s Very friendly with Steve Bruce )

 

:whistle:

Dont be too surprised if Simon Jordan and a new consortium move in on Villa,

:yes:

was talking positively and explaining how they could work themselves out of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Absolutely.  In the January Window I constantly banged the drum that I thought we did well to bring anyone in, when I think we were lucky we didn’t lose any of our stars. That made me do a full review of the 16/17 accounts for every champ club this season plus those that went up last season.  It proved that in 16/17 were were a bottom 8 side financially, return a small loss on the back of transfer profit (Kodjia, Bolassie add-ons, etc etc).  17/18 has seen no transfer profit, so I think that this season we’ll post losses  around the £10-13m mark...near the FFP average yearly loss.  Out financial year finished a few days ago, so we can’t sell anyone now and put into last year’s accounts, unless perhaps the Magnússon deal was done last week (pure speculation , nothing more).

Imho, to finance Marriott at £4-6m...someone us going out the door for more (or a combination of players).

In some ways, seeing the Villa situation may drive home the importance of financial common sense.  That’s not a Holier than thou stance, we’ve made mistakes potentially with Eliasson, Engvall, etc. Just not on such a huge scale.

Whereas parachute payments have been the saviour of relegated Prem clubs of late, the escalating transfer fees and wages have contributed to negating them when coupled with a high risk approach.  Newcastle were clever in that they had a net profit on transfer dealings when coming down and then going up.  Other teams like Villa chased it because they went down with a squad of poor players and then laid over the odds.  Much as it was great for us, paying £11m for Kodjia plus performance add-ons of up to £4m plus a sell-on clause was way over the odds, but basically hiked up the market.  Hogan for £9m too, whilst bringing in loans this season like Snodgrass and Grabban and one year deals like Terry mean they will start 18/19 not only with a few key players down but a perilous financial position, where selling a Grealish or Hogan or Kodjia will keep them going but further worsen their playing capability.  Vicious circle.

Steve Lansdown has presided over those losses, as he has done for the past 16 years. It's his choice and his choice alone how he runs the football club and £10m is very, very small change to him. Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Steve Lansdown has presided over those losses, as he has done for the past 16 years. It's his choice and his choice alone how he runs the football club and £10m is very, very small change to him. Just saying...

That does sound harsh but is true

quick calculation is that represents less than  0.0005 of his perceived wealth per annum 

Wow

Im sure one of his own investments may cover that !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Steve Lansdown has presided over those losses, as he has done for the past 16 years. It's his choice and his choice alone how he runs the football club and £10m is very, very small change to him. Just saying...

Does it matter if it’s small change or not to SL?

It matters that it’s not small change to BCFC, City fans or HMRC or FFP?

The £5m a month is small change to Tony Xia, but it isn’t to Villa if he can’t get it to them or if their spending breaks FFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Steve Lansdown has presided over those losses, as he has done for the past 16 years. It's his choice and his choice alone how he runs the football club and £10m is very, very small change to him. Just saying...

Yep, I know that. What I’m saying is that if we spend more on players than we recoup from sales each season then we will find ourselves on the fringes of the £39m FFP allowable losses over 3 years.  The wage bill is more than turnover let alone transfer fees in or out  

I think we need to sell a big un every season to be able to recruit sensibly whilst SL covers losses. Ideally SL wants us to not post losses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Does it matter if it’s small change or not to SL?

It matters that it’s not small change to BCFC, City fans or HMRC or FFP?

The £5m a month is small change to Tony Xia, but it isn’t to Villa if he can’t get it to them or if their spending breaks FFP.

Just providing some perspective...

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, I know that. What I’m saying is that if we spend more on players than we recoup from sales each season then we will find ourselves on the fringes of the £39m FFP allowable losses over 3 years.  The wage bill is more than turnover let alone transfer fees in or out  

I think we need to sell a big un every season to be able to recruit sensibly whilst SL covers losses. Ideally SL wants us to not post losses!

Agreed, of course we need to sell and we've had this discussion before, with us trying to Sell Flint etc. Not entirely sure I agree with the last point. If we were in a position where we didn't post any losses then we would not need SL! We will always rack up considerable losses whilst SL is in charge. His 'the club must stand on its own two feet' line is nothing more than lip service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I’m not an an accountant, financial expert or similar, maybe someone who is can explain how football in it’s current form, with players salaries, transfer fees and associated costs seemingly in a increasing upward trend, stay sustainable within FFP?

One aspect of the Championship I think is grossly unfair - unless I have the wrong end of the stick - is that clubs with parachute payments have a financial advantage over those without, even if those without have owners who could put in funds to that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Just providing some perspective...

To what?

We already know SL is a billionaire. 

So is Tony Xia.

It doesn’t matter how rich the owner is. If you overspend beyond your revenue, you risk FFP sanctions.

If you choose to ignore FFP or gamble on it, you risk, ala Villa being at the mercy of unforeseen issues, lumbered with unmanageable debt and the threat of administration or winding up. 

The idea that SL is a billionaire on paper and that £10m doesn’t matter to him, is a) a bit presumptuous b) irrelevant in football these days anyway and c) might not always be the case and if he racks up debt against the club and pulls the plug one day, for whatever reason, we would be Villa’d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I’m not an an accountant, financial expert or similar, maybe someone who is can explain how football in it’s current form, with players salaries, transfer fees and associated costs seemingly in a increasing upward trend, stay sustainable within FFP?

One aspect of the Championship I think is grossly unfair - unless I have the wrong end of the stick - is that clubs with parachute payments have a financial advantage over those without, even if those without have owners who could put in funds to that level.

My understanding too

It seems ridiculous that SL or any other owner couldn’t (as I understand it) give the Football Clubs funds as a gift (If he so wished / chose to do so)

 

FFP is a useful tool for the fat cats to ensure they remain the fat cats

 

 

 

I have a master plan

SL gives each season ticket holder and a mate each , all say £100k p.a as a Xmas ticket .....(.......stay with me on this one........:yes:.........) we promise to buy a season ticket ( :whistle2:....:online2long:.....:shifty:......)

Season Tickets £100k ....jobs a good Un 

:thumbsup:

:laughcont:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

To what?

We already know SL is a billionaire. 

So is Tony Xia.

It doesn’t matter how rich the owner is. If you overspend beyond your revenue, you risk FFP sanctions.

If you choose to ignore FFP or gamble on it, you risk, ala Villa being at the mercy of unforeseen issues, lumbered with unmanageable debt and the threat of administration or winding up. 

The idea that SL is a billionaire on paper and that £10m doesn’t matter to him, is a) a bit presumptuous b) irrelevant in football these days anyway and c) might not always be the case and if he racks up debt against the club and pulls the plug one day, for whatever reason, we would be Villa’d.

I'm not sure why you're taking some umbrage to me mentioning it really? The main thrust of what I was saying is that SL has presided over those losses and that is his choice. Just thought I'd add that it's small change to him, which comparatively it is as you don't appear to be disagreeing with. Sorry if it offended you though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I’m not an an accountant, financial expert or similar, maybe someone who is can explain how football in it’s current form, with players salaries, transfer fees and associated costs seemingly in a increasing upward trend, stay sustainable within FFP?

One aspect of the Championship I think is grossly unfair - unless I have the wrong end of the stick - is that clubs with parachute payments have a financial advantage over those without, even if those without have owners who could put in funds to that level.

Yep absolutely 100% spot on, great post.

I guess that’s why City are looking to generate whatever extra revenue they can, which can ultimately be off-set against running the team.

Unfortunately this will rub some fans up the wrong way. Ticket price increases, corporate deals, high paying gambling company sponsorships.

But it’s all done to compete with the £15-40m head start that 5 or 6 teams have on us before a ball is kicked. One recent study found parachute payments can be worth an extra 5 points a season.

The 3 relegated clubs will make more money in parachute payments than we will in revenue all year. Our gate revenue for example is only couple of million every year, so tickets only contributed to about 20/30% of our commercial revenue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I'm not sure why you're taking some umbrage to me mentioning it really? The main thrust of what I was saying is that SL has presided over those losses and that is his choice. Just thought I'd add that it's small change to him, which comparatively it is as you don't appear to be disagreeing with. Sorry if it offended you though!

Not offended at all! Just trying to understand what you were getting at. 

It’s always sat uncomfortably the notion that it’s all OK for BCFC because we have a sugar Daddy to stump up and it doesn’t matter to him, small change. That’s not in protection of SL but of BCFC, because BCFC will be around long after SL goes and Villa, along with many many others, have shown us what can happen when you rack up serious debt. But that’s another point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Sorry? What are you talking about? 

The link you posted is a cover, as it clearly says in the description below! 

Blimey, this has got out of hand....all I originally said that was Start by The Jam sounds the same as Taxman by The Beatles.....is that not correct?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Blimey, this has got out of hand....all I originally said that was Start by The Jam sounds the same as Taxman by The Beatles.....is that not correct?!

Yes, but the link you posted wasn't actually The Beatles…it is a cover (That's all I was saying :thumbsup:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

No it's not, it's a cover version.

There's even a foreign lilt audible on parts of it.

I meant Taxman was certainly done by The Beatles originally.....all I was saying was that Start by The Jam sounds just like Taxman by The Beatles......wish I hadn’t bothered now! I thought I was the pedantic one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I meant Taxman was certainly done by The Beatles originally.....all I was saying was that Start by The Jam sounds just like Taxman by The Beatles......wish I hadn’t bothered now! I thought I was the pedantic one!

Really not being pedantic - whatever you meant to say you actually stated the link posted was the Beatles.

That's the only thing @exAtyeoMax and myself were disputing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight.

Paul Weller has not paid the HMRC the tax due on a song he plagiarised from the Beatles and if he doesn't pay up The Jam will go into administration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aston Villa say they have reached an agreement with HM Revenue & Customs over their £4m tax bill.

The Championship side have also confirmed there are no insolvency practitioners or administration advisors working with the club.

Villa have paid HMRC £500,000 and will pay another £1.2m by the end of the week, it was reported on Wednesday.

Owner Dr Tony Xia said he wanted to reassure fans that plans were being put in place to move the club forward.

More to follow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 123red1 said:

Aston Villa say they have reached an agreement with HM Revenue & Customs over their £4m tax bill.

The Championship side have also confirmed there are no insolvency practitioners or administration advisors working with the club.

Villa have paid HMRC £500,000 and will pay another £1.2m by the end of the week, it was reported on Wednesday.

Owner Dr Tony Xia said he wanted to reassure fans that plans were being put in place to move the club forward.

More to follow.

 

So they've paid under half of it?

Right. Can someone with a greater knowledge shed some light on this. Can they stagger payments like this, and how long for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

So they've paid under half of it?

Right. Can someone with a greater knowledge shed some light on this. Can they stagger payments like this, and how long for?

They owe £4m

They've paid 500K, with an agreement to pay 1.2m by the end of the week, leaving 2.3m to be paid, which I suspect HMRC will agree to accept a payment per quarter, with interest to clear the debt.

The one thing from the statement that looks clear to me, is the club is being sold.

The owners statement on Twitter reads very much like goodbye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

So they've paid under half of it?

Right. Can someone with a greater knowledge shed some light on this. Can they stagger payments like this, and how long for?

HMRC don't normally issue a winding up order unless a business has missed several months of payment, villa have kept the vultures from the door for a month but they are in serious trouble  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 123red1 said:

They owe £4m

They've paid 500K, with an agreement to pay 1.2m by the end of the week, leaving 2.3m to be paid, which I suspect HMRC will agree to accept a payment per quarter, with interest to clear the debt.

The one thing from the statement that looks clear to me, is the club is being sold.

The owners statement on Twitter reads very much like goodbye. 

Isn’t the £5m their monthly tax bill?

They’ll scrape by this month but what about next?!

HMRC will be coming thick and fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Isn’t the £5m their monthly tax bill?

They’ll scrape by this month but what about next?!

HMRC will be coming thick and fast.

well it's not just the HMRC, theres other creditors that want paying, Brentford, Fulham and others are all owed money,

they've still got the wage bill to pay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

well it's not just the HMRC, theres other creditors that want paying, Brentford, Fulham and others are all owed money,

they've still got the wage bill to pay

They still owe £6m to Fulham for Ross McCormack apparently. 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I meant Taxman was certainly done by The Beatles originally.....all I was saying was that Start by The Jam sounds just like Taxman by The Beatles......wish I hadn’t bothered now! I thought I was the pedantic one!

Certainly does.  as does this 90s indie gem:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...