Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Albion accounts 2021/22



cloud

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2011
3,030
Here, there and everywhere
Why has the Other Creditors debt gone up from £340m to £410m.
On the face of it, Tony has pumped another £70m into the club this season.

Is that the case?
There's a note in the accounts about this:
Other creditors include Premier League rebates of £3,851,000 that will be deducted from future distributions (2021: £3,899,000 within current liabilities and £3,851,000 within non-current liabilities).
 






el punal

Well-known member
Ron Pavey will be spinning in his grave 😂


But in all seriousness, whilst there’s a touch of marmite about all of us, PB is very very good at what he does, he’s no doubt the envy of many of the EPL clubs who would pay far more for his services. (Chelsea are currently paying the 2nd best ever Albion manager £12 million a year)


Like the League form, cup run etc, let’s enjoy it while we can, unfortunately those old enough can remember the fallow times after Wembley 83.
I would like to think that we’re a damn site better run club now than in 1983. We struggled in the old Division One for three of the four seasons, 1981/82 being the exception. We replaced safe, boring Mike Bailey who took us to 13th with woeful, funny Jimmy Melia who took us down to Division Two.

The only bright spot in our final Division One season was our wonderful Cup run. How we achieved that God knows? The players ran the team then, according to rumours, and Melia was just the public face.

Perhaps after our successful years from 1976 of upward momentum the desire just deserted the club after the cup final and we never recovered.
 


chickens

Intending to survive this time of asset strippers
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
1,954
Keep playing like we’re playing and we will slowly win new fans across the country with our style of play and our (relative) success on a (comparatively) small budget.

Where we can’t compete at present is in fan base size, and in international/global revenue, though we’re increasingly “Big in Japan” and South America. If we want our revenue to grow, we need our profile to grow. That means European football (not just as a one off) and hopefully a couple of giant-killings along the way.

Tony clearly believes all this is possible, and tends to be right about things, to the extent he makes a living out of it.

Part of me has misgivings about our metamorphosis from a small community club to a larger entity in the world of football, but I’m immensely proud of everyone associated with the club, and will support whatever the future brings.
 


Lenny Rider

Well-known member
Sep 15, 2010
5,475
I would like to think that we’re a damn site better run club now than in 1983. We struggled in the old Division One for three of the four seasons, 1981/82 being the exception. We replaced safe, boring Mike Bailey who took us to 13th with woeful, funny Jimmy Melia who took us down to Division Two.

The only bright spot in our final Division One season was our wonderful Cup run. How we achieved that God knows? The players ran the team then, according to rumours, and Melia was just the public face.

Perhaps after our successful years from 1976 of upward momentum the desire just deserted the club after the cup final and we never recovered.
We are in a far stronger position, in fact light years away, but its a different world.

Hence the gulf between Ron Pavey and PB, effectively doing the same job, in different circumstances , 40 years apart.

At 58, having been going since 1973, I’m enjoying every minute, as I know that both in football and in life nothing lasts forever.

UTA ⚽
 




Seasider78

Well-known member
Nov 14, 2004
5,946
So we are probably always going to have to make big money player sales to turn a profit right ? Which we ‘know’ anyway but here’s the proof ?
Yep and look to our generous owner to prop us up. The PL is a billionaires playground and without them the whole thing just collapses
 


Garry Nelson's Left Foot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
13,170
tokyo
No, the 211 includes player purchases but excludes player sales, so not a real number. 158 m is total expenses before player trading, with an operating profit of 12m even before the net profit on player trades.
Excellent, thanks!

Its good to know we made a profit before player ins and outs.
 


el punal

Well-known member
We are in a far stronger position, in fact light years away, but its a different world.

Hence the gulf between Ron Pavey and PB, effectively doing the same job, in different circumstances , 40 years apart.

At 58, having been going since 1973, I’m enjoying every minute, as I know that both in football and in life nothing lasts forever.

UTA ⚽
Well said. I always felt that when we arrived in Division One we weren’t really geared up for it. We still had a Third Division ground with a Meccano/Lego extension to the West Stand as the only structural ‘improvement’. Perhaps in those days club infrastructure and five year plans were not considered as important as they are now.

As you say, we are in a completely different world from 40 years ago.
 




nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,899
Manchester
So we are probably always going to have to make big money player sales to turn a profit right ? Which we ‘know’ anyway but here’s the proof ?
It was always the model, wasn't it? On the basis of these accounts, we made 24m having sold 69m worth of players, so need transfer income of around 44m each season, give or take. Transfer income this season is around 130m + 21m compensation for Potter, so that covers us for this current season, 23/24 and 24/25!
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,766
Fiveways
Can someone explain the accounts as simply as possible?

Am I right in thinking we spent 211million on just the running of the club last season? If we had the second lowest wages(where does it say that - I'm struggling to read any of it!) what are all the other expenses?

The accounts include the sales of Burn and White? so next years will include Bissouma, Maupay, Cucurella and Trossard?

Thanks!
I can't explain everything, but can address one or two oddities:
-- the accounts run from the end of June, which is when player contracts finish. This is already when we're into the summer transfer window, so some transfers in that window will fall within one year's accounts, others in the next
-- player purchases are accounted for by amortisation, ie, spread over the contract, whereas I think player sales are accounted for in one hit (but on this latter point, @El Presidente might confirm)
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,899
Manchester
If for some extraordinary reason I doubt that will ever happen but if we wanted to how much could we be able to spend in the summer transfer market within the FFP guidelines?
We're allowed to make an FFP loss of £105 over 3 seasons. We've turned a profit of £24m in 21/22 with 68m transfers, so on the basis of transfers + compo of 150m this season we'll probably turn a profit of around £105m for the current season - total of approx £130m. Given that a big chunk of the costs over the last 2 seasons would be non-FFP cost - e.g. infrastructure depreciation, academy costs, community stuff etc. - the actual FFP profit for the last 2 years is probably nearer 140m.

This means we could make a loss of of around 240m in 23/24 and still not fall foul of FFP. This doesn't translate to transfer spend as this is all amortised over the course of a players contract, but yes, we could in theory spend a shed load of cash next season within the rules.

Hopefully, we'll carry on with the sustainable model as it means that if we were to get relegated at any time we'd be far more likley to do a Burnley and get promoted back to the PL first attempt with ease. Also worth remembering that despite being within FFP limits, it does still require someone to cover the losses!
 




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,887
West west west Sussex
Overall creditors value has still gone up by £60m - Bank loans has gone down £30m, so looks like he's still funding the club, to a significant degree.
Habit - innit.

The Bloom-a-tron 2000 hasn't cancelled a direct debit - we've all done it.


Granted it's rare for one of mine to be £30.000.000.
 


Garry Nelson's Left Foot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
13,170
tokyo
Does anyone have a wage table for last year?

I'm intrigued to see who the club with the smaller wage bill is. I would guess at one of Brentford, burnley, Watford or Norwich.
 


mejonaNO12 aka riskit

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2003
21,528
England
Question: Would the P&L only represent the physical amount of money received for Burn and White in that set period?

So, for example, If Ben White's transfer fee was £50m but paid to us as £25m one season and then £25m again, we would only see £25m on this P&L?

If the answer is yes, then does the big swing from loss to profit (when factoring in player sales) suggest we received all (or a BIG % of the £50m) at the time, rather than Arsenal spreading payments?
 




Aug 11, 2003
2,728
The Open Market
You can hear the answers to all these questions and more on this week's Roar podcast. Second half of the show...

 


Mackenzie

Old Brightonian
Nov 7, 2003
33,618
East Wales
So a successful season and wages kept relatively low (in comparison to the league we’re in) and we still made a loss. Some of the accounts for other clubs must be horrendous.
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,899
Manchester
Question: Would the P&L only represent the physical amount of money received for Burn and White in that set period?

So, for example, If Ben White's transfer fee was £50m but paid to us as £25m one season and then £25m again, we would only see £25m on this P&L?

If the answer is yes, then does the big swing from loss to profit (when factoring in player sales) suggest we received all (or a BIG % of the £50m) at the time, rather than Arsenal spreading payments?
No. The debt owed to us by Newcastle and Arse is still shown as an asset on the balance sheet. Same as when a business might invoice a client in the last monthy of their financial year, but doesn't get paid for 30 days. The invoice goes in the accounts of the year in which the work was completed/invoiced and not in the next year when the money is paid.
 


mejonaNO12 aka riskit

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2003
21,528
England
No. The debt owed to us by Newcastle and Arse is still shown as an asset on the balance sheet. Same as when a business might invoice a client in the last monthy of their financial year, but doesn't get paid for 30 days. The invoice goes in the accounts of the year in which the work was completed/invoiced and not in the next year when the money is paid.
Thanks. So us showing a big income on the P&L would suggest we received a big chunk of those fees in the first/only payment rather than spread thinly over a few accounting periods. Nice.
 




nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,899
Manchester
Thanks. So us showing a big income on the P&L would suggest we received a big chunk of those fees in the first/only payment rather than spread thinly over a few accounting periods. Nice.
No, I think I must've made a poor explanation on my previous post. To put it as simply as possible: As far as the bottom line for the books for 21/22 are concerned, all of the circa 63m for the combination of the Burn and White sales will be included. Doesn't matter whether all the money was paid up front or not.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here