The figures are from a year ago, based on most up to date accounts at the time.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Albion accounts 2020/21 [Loss reduced to £53.4m from £67.2m ]
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
The figures are from a year ago, based on most up to date accounts at the time.
- Thread starter
- #122
Certainly, yes.
I was just talking about the principle of a P&L account, and how they are largely based on transactional activity and detached from the movement of cash.
nwgull
Well-known member
The spending on transfers of players in, which I make a total of around 55m, will however be split over the length of the contract. So assuming that most are given a 4-5 year deal then that's an extra 12-13m on the amortisation loss next season (and subsequent 4-5 seasons), rather than a 55m hit in one go. However, don't forget also that Izquierdo's and Ryan's contract came to an end last June. Their combined fees came to about 18m, so that extra amortisation is offset by about 4.5m, meaning it'll only be about 8-9m more than this year. As for Ali J, I think that his book value after 4 years amortisation will have been about the same as his fee to Feyenoord, so no net gain/loss.
Basically, that extra 65m in from the sale of White, Burn, Gykores and Longman is very likely to mean that we'll show a profit in 22/23.
The net transfer income from sale of White and Burn (and others) from the summer 2021 & January 2022 windows is £15.8m but the profit figure in the accounts will be over £60m
- May 8, 2018
- 10,626
Don’t know for sure but would assume receipt date of funds will tally to the financial year they are received. I’d be surprised if year 1 (next years accounts) we would have insisted on at least 30m of this
Weststander
Well-known member
Exactly.
[Other than at Mel Morris’s Derby. To cheat FFP, he dramatically reduced annual amortisation charges to the P&L, by subjectively inventing probable market resale values for every player. Then instead of amortising down to zero at the end of each contract, he only amortised down to those ‘market’ values.
So despite a squad costing £62m, he manipulated annual amortisation charges to the P&L down to a mere £6.6m].
Weststander
Well-known member
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.
It’s the very same accounting principle across every business.
Whether it be “intangible” fixed assets such as players, goodwill, intellectual property, or tangible fixed assets.
By 30 June 2022 Arsenal had made a legal commitment to part with £50m and in substance it will be paid. So the £50m is accounted for in full in the Albion accounts as a debt owed by Arsenal and a credit to the P&L.
Later cash instalments from Arsenal are simply deducted from the debt.
The only revision to this would be if the buyer became insolvent with a probable (> 50%) chance of a bad debt.
Under the same legal form and substance principle, Arsenal record the full £50m as an asset on the day the contract to buy was completed. Cash flow out is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Defensive measure I would suspect (possibly been approached by other clubs) - whatever some on here think, Tony at least believes he’s doing a great job and doesn’t want to lose him. FWIW his package isn’t out of line with what I’ve seen for divisional CEOs in parts of the banking industry (and those divisions could be compared with a PL club in terms of income), and is well below many.
- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,614
Not sure their 20/21 accounts are available yet but the 19/20 accounts show (probably needs a Dullard to read this expertly ) i think that Benham has put just over £100m into the club including secured loans for their community stadium.
https://www.brentfordfc.com/siteassets/documents/brentford-fc-201920-annual-report-and-accounts.pdf
(the difference between this and Falmer though is that Brentford had a ground to sell , and the stadium is a joint build with a developer - there's a lot of housing in/around the stadium)
Agreed, PB was on the shortlist (according to my SAUCE) for the Anfield job, and TB has total faith in him too. His pay is high but not excessive by EPL standards, and his £10m in total since joining the club is probably not much more than Locadia trousered during his time here. There's posters on NSC who have earned more than that over the same time frame, and not necessarily [MENTION=12697]Steve Foster[/MENTION]
Tks…that was the other thought that crossed my mind - probably at least 15 players in the squad earning more than him (although ‘earning’ might not be the correct term atm
)portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,778
It just goes to show wealth is all relative. Albion have been poor in the financial sense all my supporting life. And will remain so seemingly despite 5 years in the worlds wealthiest league!
This may (or may not) be of use to anyone who wants to see how things have changed since the last season at the Theatre of Trees
Tks, interesting. What population is included is the average weekly wage number ?
Some (sadly very few) strip out first team squad wage totals from the wage bill and I've used that to guesstimate the rest.