Robbing old cunt

[Mr Reality]

the figures show that the club generates enough without a rich sugar daddy to be more than competitve we have to get over this culture of fearing of spending money

[Blackwhite]

the figures show that the club generates enough without a rich sugar daddy to be more than competitve we have to get over this culture of fearing of spending money

This is what almost annoys me the most: these wholly inconsistent cries of "we've spent so much on shit like Vayrynen" tempered with "but it's important we don't waste money".
Old cunt needs to sack himself, Penfold and Williams, and then we might be getting somewhere. If only one of these investors was for real (read: willing to sink in oodles of cash with no control or oversight).

Anyone want to see actuarial life tables for rotund 82 year-old gentlemen? The good news for the impatient is, he's just about to start climbing a slope in the death rate. So there's always that.

[London_White]

Wow, I hadn't noticed Swansea's ratio. Their total wage bill still suggests that they've done phenomenally well but it's a very cavalier approach.

Or a successful approach.
They backed their manager and team and got the result. A single year snapshot like this can be misleading in that if they succeed in remaining in the Premier League next season as well then taken over 3 years their wage expenditure v turnover will be a much healthier ratio. This is the main problem with looking at the figures in this way, we could sit mid table in the Championship for years and remain profitable just depends how limited the Chairman's ambitions are.

[BC]

We do waste money, don't we? Just not on football. That's why with a very low playing wage bill and a big net gain on transfers we still only post a minuscule profit. Where the fuck does all the money go?

[Blackwhite]

We do waste money, don't we? Just not on football. That's why with a very low playing wage bill and a big net gain on transfers we still only post a minuscule profit. Where the fuck does all the money go?

Being careful with the language, I'd like to see a forensic dissection of the transfers between depts. (e.g. Radio stations) and where that cash actually goes. I'm sure it's fine, and not one of those Fiduciary tricks bent businessmen use to silently suck profit out of companies.
What was that Swiss holding house called again, Chateau Fiduciaire was it? I'm sure it's all fine.

[gazurtoids]

Wow, I hadn't noticed Swansea's ratio. Their total wage bill still suggests that they've done phenomenally well but it's a very cavalier approach.

Or a successful approach.
They backed their manager and team and got the result. A single year snapshot like this can be misleading in that if they succeed in remaining in the Premier League next season as well then taken over 3 years their wage expenditure v turnover will be a much healthier ratio. This is the main problem with looking at the figures in this way, we could sit mid table in the Championship for years and remain profitable just depends how limited the Chairman's ambitions are.

It's undoubtedly been successful but there's no guarantee of that. I would argue that 150% wages:turnover is cavalier, reckless even. They went up through the play-offs, didn't they? It could have easily gone very wrong. Is this where having a Trust involved in running the club gets you, I wonder (in Devil's Advocate mode)?

The important thing to note is that our turnover is much greater than Swanseas. We ought to be able to match or even exceed their spending without taking the same kind of risks. But we won't, of course.

[the flying pig]

We do waste money, don't we? Just not on football. That's why with a very low playing wage bill and a big net gain on transfers we still only post a minuscule profit. Where the fuck does all the money go?

renting TA & ER amounts to about 5% of our turnover.

and then there's the pipes.

[the flying pig]

Wow, I hadn't noticed Swansea's ratio. Their total wage bill still suggests that they've done phenomenally well but it's a very cavalier approach.

Or a successful approach.
They backed their manager and team and got the result. A single year snapshot like this can be misleading in that if they succeed in remaining in the Premier League next season as well then taken over 3 years their wage expenditure v turnover will be a much healthier ratio. This is the main problem with looking at the figures in this way, we could sit mid table in the Championship for years and remain profitable just depends how limited the Chairman's ambitions are.

It's undoubtedly been successful but there's no guarantee of that. I would argue that 150% wages:turnover is cavalier, reckless even. They went up through the play-offs, didn't they? It could have easily gone very wrong. Is this where having a Trust involved in running the club gets you, I wonder (in Devil's Advocate mode)?

The important thing to note is that our turnover is much greater than Swanseas. We ought to be able to match or even exceed their spending without taking the same kind of risks. But we won't, of course.

150% is absurd. i wouldn't particularly expect any chairman to pay that out of his own pocket our out of debt. i'd like to see us running a little below 60% or whatever the guidelines recommend as a maximum.

[thechubbyone]

150% is absurd. i wouldn't particularly expect any chairman to pay that out of his own pocket our out of debt. i'd like to see us running a little below 60% or whatever the guidelines recommend as a maximum.

All anyone really wants to see is the money we've invested in building shit, Yorkshire Radio and spunked on pointless court cases invested in the team. If we're going to waste money I'd rather we wasted it on footballers.

[AndyPaul]

We do waste money, don't we? Just not on football. That's why with a very low playing wage bill and a big net gain on transfers we still only post a minuscule profit. Where the fuck does all the money go?

renting TA & ER amounts to about 5% of our turnover.

and then there's the pipes.

Those god dam pipes Ken really needs to get them checked out, though this would come at a cost I suppose, of say a central defenders wages for a year.

[Oheddieeddie]

We do waste money, don't we? Just not on football. That's why with a very low playing wage bill and a big net gain on transfers we still only post a minuscule profit. Where the fuck does all the money go?

renting TA & ER amounts to about 5% of our turnover.

and then there's the pipes.

Those god dam pipes Ken really needs to get them checked out, though this would come at a cost I suppose, of say a central defenders wages for a year.

Never mind the pipes, you want to see our control room, did ken not say in his weekly bollocks once that its the envy of many premier league clubs?

[gazurtoids]

oh aye, nowt stirs up the old green-eyed monster quite like a good control room...

[London_White]

Wow, I hadn't noticed Swansea's ratio. Their total wage bill still suggests that they've done phenomenally well but it's a very cavalier approach.

Or a successful approach.
They backed their manager and team and got the result. A single year snapshot like this can be misleading in that if they succeed in remaining in the Premier League next season as well then taken over 3 years their wage expenditure v turnover will be a much healthier ratio. This is the main problem with looking at the figures in this way, we could sit mid table in the Championship for years and remain profitable just depends how limited the Chairman's ambitions are.

It's undoubtedly been successful but there's no guarantee of that. I would argue that 150% wages:turnover is cavalier, reckless even. They went up through the play-offs, didn't they? It could have easily gone very wrong. Is this where having a Trust involved in running the club gets you, I wonder (in Devil's Advocate mode)?

The important thing to note is that our turnover is much greater than Swanseas. We ought to be able to match or even exceed their spending without taking the same kind of risks. But we won't, of course.

I'd agree that consistently spending 150% would be reckless but my point was that this is a one year snapshot. Would be interesting to see the year or two before that as well. One year's risk has succeeded for them, our no year risk policy will never succeed.

[jackos]

I'd agree that consistently spending 150% would be reckless but my point was that this is a one year snapshot. Would be interesting to see the year or two before that as well. One year's risk has succeeded for them, our no year risk policy will never succeed.

Sure, but it ain't looking all that dandy for Leicester, or (hopefully] west Ham. For each Blackpool/Norwich there's a couple of Portsmouth's ...

[gazurtoids]

I'd agree that consistently spending 150% would be reckless but my point was that this is a one year snapshot. Would be interesting to see the year or two before that as well. One year's risk has succeeded for them, our no year risk policy will never succeed.

Sure. And it's probably worth noting that applying a "prudent" UEFA-approved approach of 60%, Swansea might never have been able to afford to get promotion.

However, it looks like a one-year snapshot now with likely improvement when viewed over this and next season but the point that they could have lost the play-off final still stands. Then, they would have faced the prospect of running another year at >100% w:t and we all know that wage bills can be difficult to trim. Even one year of excess can be a big gamble.

Swansea are probably are key argument against the proposed introduction of financial fair play. If they'd played "fair", would they ever have made it to the PL?

-- edit --

Wait, that's not necessarily an argument against FFP is it? They might have made it in a league where everyone was abiding by FFP. Hard to tell. Certainly, the current arrangement forces smaller clubs to either live beyond their means briefly or resign themselves to life outside the top tier.

[London_White]

I'd agree that consistently spending 150% would be reckless but my point was that this is a one year snapshot. Would be interesting to see the year or two before that as well. One year's risk has succeeded for them, our no year risk policy will never succeed.

Sure. And it's probably worth noting that applying a "prudent" UEFA-approved approach of 60%, Swansea might never have been able to afford to get promotion.

However, it looks like a one-year snapshot now with likely improvement when viewed over this and next season but the point that they could have lost the play-off final still stands. Then, they would have faced the prospect of running another year at >100% w:t and we all know that wage bills can be difficult to trim. Even one year of excess can be a big gamble.

Swansea are probably are key argument against the proposed introduction of financial fair play. If they'd played "fair", would they ever have made it to the PL?

-- edit --

Wait, that's not necessarily an argument against FFP is it? They might have made it in a league where everyone was abiding by FFP. Hard to tell. Certainly, the current arrangement forces smaller clubs to either live beyond their means briefly or resign themselves to life outside the top tier.

Yeah, know what you mean - if there was such a thing as a level playing field we'd be able to measure each club against all the others but currently that's not possible.
Ultimately though all this (FFP)is going to do is reinforce the few at the top at the expense of everyone else so nowt new there then, and the inevitable UEFA super league moves even closer

[the flying pig]

the recent link on the football finance thread seems to suggest [it's vague, suggesting to me that it's author either doesn't know or doesn't properly understand the details] that clubs will be allowed to make losses if it's a case of 'sugar daddies' putting money in, just not if it's a case of borrowing. this would make the FL version unlike the UEFA fair play rules, which don't allow any kind of losses above a certain threshold.

[gazurtoids]

the recent link on the football finance thread seems to suggest [it's vague, suggesting to me that it's author either doesn't know or doesn't properly understand the details] that clubs will be allowed to make losses if it's a case of 'sugar daddies' putting money in, just not if it's a case of borrowing. this would make the FL version unlike the UEFA fair play rules, which don't allow any kind of losses above a certain threshold.

You mean the bit about equity vs loans? Yeah, sounds like it. Am I right in thinking that UEFA's rules are to be applied over a rolling three-year period too? So, a club would be able to overspend/gamble for one year as long as it underspent thereafter?

[Phil LUFC]

I still think the solution is obvious (posted at some point last year, probably in the finances thread), maybe I should write to FIFA/UEFA

Use top flight turnover median in each league to apply the 60% maximum wage spend, give or take some leniency to cover any sudden drops in the median. If you're below the median, its 60% of your own turnover. So basically what they're doing anyway (or trying to do) below the top flight, but level the top half of the top division in the wage stakes. If Scum want to raise their spending power vs CL competitors, they need to make the the 11th richest english club richer (with the median being half way between 10th and 11th richest club's turnover obviously), ie spend their transfer millions on players from Villa and not from Spanish clubs - might encourage home grown players as a by-product, but suppose those clubs right on the median could drastically inflate prices of their players.

[gazurtoids]

So, encourage Scum to take the best players from their domestic competitors then? (Which, actually, they already do: Young, Rooney, Berbatov ... Ferdinand).

This would encourage Chelsea, Man City & Arsenal -- who tend to buy from foreign clubs -- to do the same. Is this really a good thing?