king_dezeeuw06
Vital Football Legend
I was thinking about the plan is to only spend 2m more than we have in revenue and had a look at what that means looking at our L1 accounts. I'm no expert at reading accounts and the way different clubs do them are not exactly the same, so happy to be corrected on any of this if i've misread or misunderstood.
Last seasons we brought in 8m before you accounted for any player sales. So i think it's reasonable to assume we'll have about 8m revenue again in L1. So that means our budget will be around 10m based on what the ownership said.
The total cost of running the club was 18m, according to the meeting we just have only 7m of that is player salary, leaving 5m non player salary. Leaving 5m in other costs. We have a total of 241 staff.
If we assume the cost of non playing staff and other costs are going to be similar, the issue is those 2 things cost 10m in L1 last time. Which would max out the potential 10m budget before we pay a single player.
I had a look at other clubs - Rotherham had a 6m wage bill (not stated how much was players) and 3m general admin costs with 161 employees. So our non playing staff wage bill in nearly as much as Rotherham's whole wage budget and we are spending significantly more in running costs.
Examining the details a bit more you see that Rotherham have 80 less employees than us, but we have roughly similar number across players, coaching, matchday staff but the big difference was they only have 4 'admin or other' while we have 58 and that is what seems really strange considering we are probably a similar sized club.
I also had a look at Portsmouth accounts their wage bill being 8m and admin costs of 4m. They have just 138 staff (103 less than us) but they don't break down their numbers into many sub categories to do a direct comparison like we could with Rotherham. Again you'd say they are probably a similar sized club.
Sunderland's latest accounts dont seem to have been published yet, but looking at the year prior when they were still in L1, their wage bill was 13m, they had 196 employees, they don't break their numbers down as clearly as us but it is still 45 less than us despite them being a bigger club.
We appear to have an extremely high non playing staff wage bill which is possibly down to having a lot more employees than the other clubs do. Considering we are not a particularly big club - i really don't know how we've got so many more employees than clubs at the same level.
To make the 2m more than income approach work we are going to probably need to be cutting costs across the board as even slashing the player wage bill to more like their 3m original plan, we are still going to need to cut something like 3m in non playing staff and operating costs compared to the last time we were in L1 to get there. So it seems like a lot of things off the pitch will need to be changed as well to try and meet the new budget target.
Last seasons we brought in 8m before you accounted for any player sales. So i think it's reasonable to assume we'll have about 8m revenue again in L1. So that means our budget will be around 10m based on what the ownership said.
The total cost of running the club was 18m, according to the meeting we just have only 7m of that is player salary, leaving 5m non player salary. Leaving 5m in other costs. We have a total of 241 staff.
If we assume the cost of non playing staff and other costs are going to be similar, the issue is those 2 things cost 10m in L1 last time. Which would max out the potential 10m budget before we pay a single player.
I had a look at other clubs - Rotherham had a 6m wage bill (not stated how much was players) and 3m general admin costs with 161 employees. So our non playing staff wage bill in nearly as much as Rotherham's whole wage budget and we are spending significantly more in running costs.
Examining the details a bit more you see that Rotherham have 80 less employees than us, but we have roughly similar number across players, coaching, matchday staff but the big difference was they only have 4 'admin or other' while we have 58 and that is what seems really strange considering we are probably a similar sized club.
I also had a look at Portsmouth accounts their wage bill being 8m and admin costs of 4m. They have just 138 staff (103 less than us) but they don't break down their numbers into many sub categories to do a direct comparison like we could with Rotherham. Again you'd say they are probably a similar sized club.
Sunderland's latest accounts dont seem to have been published yet, but looking at the year prior when they were still in L1, their wage bill was 13m, they had 196 employees, they don't break their numbers down as clearly as us but it is still 45 less than us despite them being a bigger club.
We appear to have an extremely high non playing staff wage bill which is possibly down to having a lot more employees than the other clubs do. Considering we are not a particularly big club - i really don't know how we've got so many more employees than clubs at the same level.
To make the 2m more than income approach work we are going to probably need to be cutting costs across the board as even slashing the player wage bill to more like their 3m original plan, we are still going to need to cut something like 3m in non playing staff and operating costs compared to the last time we were in L1 to get there. So it seems like a lot of things off the pitch will need to be changed as well to try and meet the new budget target.
Last edited:
I know you want to find reasons to keep on looking on the dark side, but bloody hell, it must be hard work digging around all the time.
