[Albion] Albion accounts 2020/21 [Loss reduced to £53.4m from £67.2m ]

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We aint exactly progressing in the Premier League table at the moment. We now need 8 points in the last 9 games to match the last two seasons. That is after 12 points from our first 15.

Aren't all the accounts based on the same thing?

Points and money are related, as are nice car and petrol. But having petrol doesn't get you a nice car, and having a nice car doesn't get you a full tank.

 

[nwgull]

I just opened that link on my phone. The way I read it is 12 account been released 3 with bigger losses and 8 lost less Man city and Wolves made a profit and Burnley broke even. Wolves wrote of a £127 m debt but still would have made a profit.

What’s the link you’ve got? I was going off of Price of Football Twitter and his EBIT comparisons.

 

[andy1980]

Points and money are related, as are nice car and petrol. But having petrol doesn't get you a nice car, and having a nice car doesn't get you a full tank.

I meant everybodys accounts are based on the same metrics. All I know is we are told that our long term aim is top 10 and we will know if we are progressing if we head up the league in a non linea manner (as everyone has good seasons and bad). if we get 8 points from our last 9 games then that would be 41 pts (15 pos) 41 pts (16 pos) 41pts (?? pos) when should the heading up league start??

 

[andy1980]

What’s the link you’ve got? I was going off of Price of Football Twitter and his EBIT comparisons.

If you look at post 26 its to a twitter post by swiss ramble. sent at 7.04 this morning I think.

 

[Weststander]

I just opened that link on my phone. The way I read it is 12 account been released 3 with bigger losses and 8 lost less Man city and Wolves made a profit and Burnley broke even. Wolves wrote of a £127 m debt but still would have made a profit.

That's true about Wolves, a £21m profit, because they made a £61m profit in selling players.

They have a special link with one of the super-agents who gets them top class players for a song. Then they sell eg Jota.

The £127m debt write off is an irrelevance in this discussion about profitability. That's a paper transaction and it didn't appear in their P&L Account.

 

[andy1980]

That's true about Wolves, a £21m profit, because they made a £61m profit in selling players.

They have a special link with one of the super-agents who gets them top class players for a song. Then they sell eg Jota.

The £127m debt write off is an irrelevance in this discussion about profitability. That's a paper transaction and it didn't appear in their P&L Account.

Maybe from now on player sales will be our route up the table. This season White, and Burn. Next season Bissouma, and Triossard. It could be the making of us. Maybe.

 

[Springal]

Hands off except for paying for the Amex and investing £400m in the club.

Don’t be daft. No one with that size of investment and the wealth and brain of Tony is going to be hands off. He is the controlling shareholder and the cash payments are straight from his directors loan account.

And believe me, if Albion was a public company his job would be a hell of a sight harder for his 2 million quid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So why such a large wage increase recently and why make him vice chairman over someone like Adam Franks or Marc Sugarman who Bloom goes back a long way?

 

[Weststander]

Maybe from now on player sales will be our route up the table. This season White, and Burn. Next season Bissouma, and Triossard. It could be the making of us. Maybe.

I drafted a post with the 2020/21 accounts profits for all non-CL club, or 2019/20 where unavailable, with the effect of player trading profits highlighted ..... but then deleted the blooming thing. I can't be bothered to do it again

Yes, there were about 5 clubs who were headed for losses not dissimilar to ours, but profits on player trading cut the losses dramatically. From memory, Leicester, Wolves, Burnley, Villa, Newcastle.

West Ham will get a vast one and cash inflow from selling Rice - he must be worth well in excess of £100m now. Age just 23 and bossing EPL/international midfields almost every game.

It has to be our plan and it started with White. But the talent and application must be proven to get the sale prices - worryingly Bissouma and Trossard's form have declined massively, whilst Lamptey just isn't getting the support to showcase his talent at its best.

 

[Lower West Stander]

So why such a large wage increase recently and why make him vice chairman over someone like Adam Franks or Marc Sugarman who Bloom goes back a long way?

Because vice chairman is an utterly pointless title which means absolutely nothing in a privately owned company with a controlling shareholder.

In fact in a public company it would be earmarked as poor governance because Vice Chairman and CEO would not be the same person. It’s a mixing of exec and non exec roles which would not be acceptable to an external investor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

Because vice chairman is an utterly pointless title which means absolutely nothing in a privately owned company with a controlling shareholder.

In fact in a public company it would be earmarked as poor governance because Vice Chairman and CEO would not be the same person. It’s a mixing of exec and non exec roles which would not be acceptable to an external investor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As a private limited company, I think it was more symbolic, reflecting TB's faith in PB. Hopefully for TB securing his loyalty for years to come.

I see PB one day taking the EPL job, Scudamore's old job. PB's only 55, time's on his side.

 

[andy1980]

I drafted a post with the 2020/21 accounts profits for all non-CL club, or 2019/20 where unavailable, with the effect of player trading profits highlighted ..... but then deleted the blooming thing. I can't be bothered to do it again

Yes, there were about 5 clubs who were headed for losses not dissimilar to ours, but profits on player trading cut the losses dramatically. From memory, Leicester, Wolves, Burnley, Villa, Newcastle.

West Ham will get a vast one and cash inflow from selling Rice - he must be worth well in excess of £100m now. Age just 23 and bossing EPL/international midfields almost every game.

It has to be our plan and it started with White. But the talent and application must be proven to get the sale prices - worryingly Bissouma and Trossard's form have declined massively, whilst Lamptey just isn't getting the support to showcase his talent at its best.

financially things are getting harder. I think I read an article about the Premier League over seas deal increases again next season and the transfer spend is expected to hit £1 billion this summer. We need to be one of the clubs that gets good return on player sales and has our previous transfers come good.

We are too reliant on Tony. In a way its nice to know he is there ready to put his money where his heart is, but it would be even nicer if he doesn't have to.

 

[Easy 10]

Mooy’s transfer was at beginning of 20/21, so that 4m will have been part of the 17m player sales income in this set of results. The rest would’ve been from Knocky to Fulham (which was a year long loan-to-but deal) and a few quid for Button and Dale Stephens.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/artic...e usually paid,investment they will be making.

Transfer fees are usually paid in instalments
Any club wanting to invest huge amounts in a superstar player needs to consider the total investment they will be making. When newspaper headlines quote a transfer fee of £35m, many fans would be forgiven for thinking that a buying club transfers £35m to the selling club on the day of the transfer and that is that. In fact, the reported total headline transfer fee is often different from the actual amounts paid to the selling club.
Let’s suggest that Liverpool pay £35m for a Brazilian international player. The transfer agreement may state that Liverpool pay:

• £15m up front. • £5m on both the first and second anniversaries of the player’s transfer. • £5m if the player makes 50 appearances for Liverpool. • £5m if the player wins the Champions League and the Premier League with Liverpool (£2.5m per win).

If the player doesn’t make 50 appearances for Liverpool and the club doesn’t win the Champions League or Premier League, then the club will only ever pay £25m to the selling club out of a headline reported figure of £35m.


None of us know the details of any deals, but the point remains - our 2021 accounts may not necessarily be boosted by an immediate £50m injection from the sale of Ben White. The income from that fee may be spread over several years, possibly the full 5 of his contract.

 

[nwgull]

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/artic...e usually paid,investment they will be making.

Transfer fees are usually paid in instalments
Any club wanting to invest huge amounts in a superstar player needs to consider the total investment they will be making. When newspaper headlines quote a transfer fee of £35m, many fans would be forgiven for thinking that a buying club transfers £35m to the selling club on the day of the transfer and that is that. In fact, the reported total headline transfer fee is often different from the actual amounts paid to the selling club.
Let’s suggest that Liverpool pay £35m for a Brazilian international player. The transfer agreement may state that Liverpool pay:

• £15m up front. • £5m on both the first and second anniversaries of the player’s transfer. • £5m if the player makes 50 appearances for Liverpool. • £5m if the player wins the Champions League and the Premier League with Liverpool (£2.5m per win).

If the player doesn’t make 50 appearances for Liverpool and the club doesn’t win the Champions League or Premier League, then the club will only ever pay £25m to the selling club out of a headline reported figure of £35m.


None of us know the details of any deals, but the point remains - our 2021 accounts may not necessarily be boosted by an immediate £50m injection from the sale of Ben White. The income from that fee may be spread over several years, possibly the full 5 of his contract.

Once you agree a price on a player and the transfer goes through, that debt becomes an asset and is included in the accounts. It’s correct that add one for appearances etc. don’t until the conditions are triggered, but as far as the White transfer is concerned, that 50m will be included in the accounts for 21/22 whether Arsenal paid it upfront or over 5 years.

 

[Easy 10]

Once you agree a price on a player and the transfer goes through, that debt becomes an asset and is included in the accounts. It’s correct that add one for appearances etc. don’t until the conditions are triggered, but as far as the White transfer is concerned, that 50m will be included in the accounts for 21/22 whether Arsenal paid it upfront or over 5 years.

I shall bow to your superior knowledge then. I would have assumed that the entire transfer fee that was agreed does not appear in our coffers until the *actual* money does. But I am not an accountant.

 

[Bozza]

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/artic...e usually paid,investment they will be making.

Transfer fees are usually paid in instalments
Any club wanting to invest huge amounts in a superstar player needs to consider the total investment they will be making. When newspaper headlines quote a transfer fee of £35m, many fans would be forgiven for thinking that a buying club transfers £35m to the selling club on the day of the transfer and that is that. In fact, the reported total headline transfer fee is often different from the actual amounts paid to the selling club.
Let’s suggest that Liverpool pay £35m for a Brazilian international player. The transfer agreement may state that Liverpool pay:

• £15m up front. • £5m on both the first and second anniversaries of the player’s transfer. • £5m if the player makes 50 appearances for Liverpool. • £5m if the player wins the Champions League and the Premier League with Liverpool (£2.5m per win).

If the player doesn’t make 50 appearances for Liverpool and the club doesn’t win the Champions League or Premier League, then the club will only ever pay £25m to the selling club out of a headline reported figure of £35m.


None of us know the details of any deals, but the point remains - our 2021 accounts may not necessarily be boosted by an immediate £50m injection from the sale of Ben White. The income from that fee may be spread over several years, possibly the full 5 of his contract.

100% of the White sale will be included in the next set of results.

As someone answered above regarding a different transaction - the P&L will book 100% of a sale in the financial period it takes place, regardless of when the associated cash changes hands.

A purchase is different, however - whether it's a £300 laptop or a £100m player - where, typically, the value of the asset is ammortised over a number of years. So with Arsenal signing White on a 5-year deal, they will probably book a £10m charge to each of their next five years' P&L, assuming he is with them for the duration.

 

[tronnogull]

As a private limited company, I think it was more symbolic, reflecting TB's faith in PB. Hopefully for TB securing his loyalty for years to come.

I see PB one day taking the EPL job, Scudamore's old job. PB's only 55, time's on his side.

I seem to recall that PB was made vice chair when another club ( Liverpool ? ) came calling. So he got a promotion and pay rise to keep him at the Albion. It's a lot of money but I'd say TB gets far better value from PB's salary than from most of the players. ( By which I don't mean to knock players individually, I'm just saying that their compensation is artificially inflated. I wish that the Prem would refuse to give the TV companies the level of control that they have. If this meant that the TV rights were worth a little less, it would just reduce the dosh flowing through the clubs to players and agents. )

 

[Easy 10]

100% of the White sale will be included in the next set of results.

As someone answered above regarding a different transaction - the P&L will book 100% of a sale in the financial period it takes place, regardless of when the associated cash changes hands.

A purchase is different, however - whether it's a £300 laptop or a £100m player - where, typically, the value of the asset is ammortised over a number of years. So with Arsenal signing White on a 5-year deal, they will probably book a £10m charge to each of their next five years' P&L, assuming he is with them for the duration.

Fair enough

I didn't appreciate the concept of a footballing debt (ie an entire transfer fee) still being considered an asset on a balance sheet even if its been set over several years, but [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION] and yourself have clarified it well. Still seems odd that cash not coming in until later, several years later, can be "assumed" as an asset on a balance sheet though. Its not like the selling club can ever repossess a player, like a bank could with a house if the mortgage defaults.

But I guess thats just another one of the vagueries of football.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Once you agree a price on a player and the transfer goes through, that debt becomes an asset and is included in the accounts. It’s correct that add one for appearances etc. don’t until the conditions are triggered, but as far as the White transfer is concerned, that 50m will be included in the accounts for 21/22 whether Arsenal paid it upfront or over 5 years.

Yes.

And that is why cashflow is more important than profit.

Cash for dough. Profit for show.

 

[southstandandy]

100% of the White sale will be included in the next set of results.

As someone answered above regarding a different transaction - the P&L will book 100% of a sale in the financial period it takes place, regardless of when the associated cash changes hands.

A purchase is different, however - whether it's a £300 laptop or a £100m player - where, typically, the value of the asset is ammortised over a number of years. So with Arsenal signing White on a 5-year deal, they will probably book a £10m charge to each of their next five years' P&L, assuming he is with them for the duration.

But presumably the fact that we then spent £45m on Mwepu, Sima, Cucurella and Scherpen will also. Very little net gain.

Same with the Dan Burn sale - yes £13m in, but £14m out on Kozlowski and Undav.

 

[W3 BHA]

Not sure you pay VAT on people [emoji23]

Having to pay VAT on loan fees for 'players' like Akpom, Best, Bent, Wilson etc would really have been rubbing salt into the wound