Football finance is back in the headlines again this morning. This time it's about Aston Villa.

A Villa non-exec allegedly told a supporters' website forum that recently departed manager Martin O'Neill left because he didn't fancy lowering the club's wages to turnover ratio.

According to Deloitte's latest survey of clubs, Villa's ratio as a percentage was 84% for 2008/2009.

It has been widely accepted that anything above 60% is less than healthy.

Its another example of managers having to balance books as well as juggle team selection.

And the highest ratio for a Premier League club in that season? Portsmouth, with 109%. Perhaps you can see where Villa owner Randy Lerner was coming from on this one.

Obviously accountants have to be able to show they can look after their own finances, for the public to have trust in them.

But it seems a bit harsh for the ICAEW to fine a member £254 for entering into an insolvency voluntary arrangement (IVA).

I hope the institute has also been helping that member through its support group CABA, so that he or she can pay this extra financial burden put upon them.

Anyone doubting Mazars' desire to keep on the case of the Big Four's stranglehold at the top end of the audit marketplace need look no further than the FT's letters page today.

Its head of public interest markets, David Herbinet, has been pretty quiet recently - what with audit competition out of the headlines for a little while. He has, of course, been more vocal in the past.

But with the Lords having a look at the make-up of the market, Herbinet has wasted no time in reminding its readers of the findings of the Oxera report into competition in the marketplace.

A FTSE 100 auditor can expect to remain in place for an "eyewatering" 48 years.

"My firm and others are committed to pressing for reform," he wrote.

David, it's good to hear from you again, it's been much quieter without you.

Do accountants risk losing the trust of small businesses by not being able to look after their own financial affairs?

The answer is yes, according to Merseyside accountant Alan Woods of Woods Squared.

Citing the high profile collapse of Vantis, and other regional firms, Woods thinks it could prove "difficult to win the trust of small businesses" if they see firms collapsing around them.

Woods' statement is provocative but definitely arguable and worthy of debate.

My first instinct was "no", Woods is wrong. There will always be badly managed accountancy firms, of that there's no doubt. Other professional services providers, such as lawyers and IFAs, are certainly prone to this problem.

Those firms close to collapse can't expect clients to stick around, but that shouldn't really give any splash damage.

It just means that a client of a dying firm will simply move on to the next provider on the list, they'll expect they were just unlucky with the last lot and the next bunch will be there for the foreseeable. Of course, these days with the internet, live electronic communication and sharing of data, that doesn't necessarily mean within the same region as their previous provider of business services.

The more pressing problem for firms, which has been sucking the life out of them for years, is failing to recognise that clients want a broader range of business services than just compliance. This is where the image problem truly exists, as opposed to Woods' view, and will be the real downfall for many firms.

So the OFT has come out fighting against the corporate insolvency industry for charging unsecured creditors too high fees, and a general lack of consideration and representation for them.

There's little doubt that some insolvency practitioners go beyond the pale in how they treat unsecured creditors - keeping them out of the loop on what is going on, and seemingly pandering to the big banks that hold large chunks of security against floundering businesses. Oh, and selling assets back to management wiped clean of their creditors always goes down well.

Insolvency practitioners (IPs) understandably argue that they play to the rules, and there are just a few bad apples who stretch the rules to the limit - and beyond.

However, the profession has never been great at clearly and plainly explaining to unsecured creditors where they stand - often firing out boiler plate letters and jargon-filled updates that appear to creditors as obfuscation.

So the OFT's recommendations to make it easier to make complaints about IPs, plus extra fee transparency, will be a great help.

But as the vast majority of IPs do follow the rules, unsecured creditors will be sorely disappointed if they think these changes will have a dramatic effect on their return from a defunct debtor.

If there are no assets, then there are no assets. Secured creditors will always take the chunk of what's available.

Hopefully the rule changes will make it easier for unsecured creditors to understand the whats, whys and hows of an insolvency, which surely is a good thing for the profession.

The annual Top 50 +50 survey of firms was, as usual, a stressful process. Not least for our features editor Paul Grant and the firms taking part.

I had previously blogged that there was a chance that, with the tough economic conditions, some firms might decide that their latest figures weren't fit for public consumption.

My Nostradamus-like prediction (I'm begin sarcastic here folks) came true.

I don't want to tar all the firms with the same brush, as there were many varied reasons why they turned us down this year.

But still, it was a shame that one Top 50 firm declined to take part this year, having been regular entrants, while four of the + 50 also said no.

We estimated their income anyway - and congrats to the others who got their numbers through to us. Check the latest survey out here.

Reports suggest that Vantis could sell off a part of its business to lower its debt burden.

Vantis won't say it, instead suggesting it's looking at a variety of different options.

Let's take that as a red rag to speculate about what could happen next.

If the firm is looking to sell off part of the business, which part?

One option would be to sell by location. Sell off under-performing offices back to the partners (or directors, as Vantis is of course listed), to cut out the parts draining the coffers.

The problem with this option is it's unlikely to generate much cash for Vantis.

So the only other option would be to go by service line.

Vantis' Business Recovery Services (BRS) unit represents around a third of its £100m annual fee income. This service line is represented in Vantis' accounts as separate from its Business Advisory & Tax line.

Business recovery traditionally has lots of work in progess tying up cash. This is no different with Vantis, where liquidators are still trying to gain access to assets related to Stanford International Bank.

So I'll stick my neck out and suggest that a sale of BRS is Vantis' most likely option to cash in from.

Let's speculate further. Who could buy it? Well, listed recovery specialists Begbies Traynor has nearly £19m in headroom from its new credit facilities...then again, 2+2=5 sometimes.

One to watch.

With another Budget around the corner, I wondered how the already hard-pressed practices would get their heads around another set of tax changes (or simplification as any new government would put it).

The basic calculation would be uncertainty + emergency budget = unbilled hours.

This, of course, is not a nice outcome, financially speaking.

So once again I will back up the views of many an experienced practice adviser: bill your clients monthly.

It all ties into providing them a broader service, rather than helping them bash out their tax return from of a shoebox of receipts.

OK, money's tight and the last thing you want to do is push a client over the edge when you're meant to be helping them. But a firm of accountants is not a charity.