166% of turnover spent on staff costs ! | Vital Football

166% of turnover spent on staff costs !

L

Lienking

Vital Football Hero
East Midlands Today reporting that Forest spent the highest percentage of turnover on wages in the league, ironically joint top with Brentford. There are obviously clubs with parachute payments lowering the percentage, but you can't help feeling that with the money we spend we should be consistently in the top ten. Looks like 15 clubs spent at least 100% of turnover on wages. Evening Post says the figures are for 2016, so not sure if this means last season, or the actual year. My guess is the playing year.
 
The players should hang their heads in shame given the salaries they are all on and the shit they dish up on a regular basis.
 
The players should hang their heads in shame given the salaries they are all on and the shit they dish up on a regular basis.
 
Doesn't matter what you are paid. If you aren't good enough to win consistently an extra 5k in your pay packet isnt going to change that

It's not the wages we are paying thats the problem but who we have chosen to pay them to. For that disastrous turnover we need players up to getting promotion and making that situation temporary

The other issue is that our turnover just isn't good enough
 
It goes without saying that these figures are utterly ludicrous, regardless of the fact that the players don't deserve to usurp that amount of cash from the club last season.
 
The most expensive salaries for a club are often positions like CEO, Dir of Finance, Commercial Director, DoF etc. In 2016 Fawaz filled all these positions so either he paid himself hell of a wage or the 161% is worse than first glance suggests. EM and MW have a big job on their hands to turn round.
 
EMT said it was for 2015/2016 and I took it too mean all staff not just players

And to think we had no actual ceo etc then makes you wonder who was being paid what
 
Shocking, but not surprising. I'd expect no less from the finely honed business brain of our former owner.

The sums we have shelled out on utter dross over recent years just leaves you shaking your head.
 
Pope John XXIII - 10/8/2017 19:25

Doesn't matter what you are paid. If you aren't good enough to win consistently an extra 5k in your pay packet isnt going to change that

It's not the wages we are paying thats the problem but who we have chosen to pay them to. For that disastrous turnover we need players up to getting promotion and making that situation temporary

The other issue is that our turnover just isn't good enough
Click to expand...


I really hope Plummer does not read this post; he will have a fooking field day!
 
mao tse tung - 10/8/2017 21:33

Pope John XXIII - 10/8/2017 19:25

Doesn't matter what you are paid. If you aren't good enough to win consistently an extra 5k in your pay packet isnt going to change that

It's not the wages we are paying thats the problem but who we have chosen to pay them to. For that disastrous turnover we need players up to getting promotion and making that situation temporary

The other issue is that our turnover just isn't good enough
Click to expand...


I really hope Plummer does not read this post; he will have a fooking field day!
Click to expand...


:19: :19:
 
You two are like Gripper Stebson and Imelda Davis

Im guessing Mao is the former and CP the latter
 
Pope John XXIII - 10/8/2017 20:25

Doesn't matter what you are paid. If you aren't good enough to win consistently an extra 5k in your pay packet isnt going to change that

It's not the wages we are paying thats the problem but who we have chosen to pay them to. For that disastrous turnover we need players up to getting promotion and making that situation temporary

The other issue is that our turnover just isn't good enough
Click to expand...

fook, im with pope on that pretty much
 
As a general rule in the Premier there seems to be a direct link between the wages bill and position finished in the league. For some reason this doesn't seem to be quite so true in our league. The parachute payments have gone up dramatically so maybe things will change , but several clubs have used their parachute payments to get relegated again! Blackburn, Wigan and Blackpool are probably special cases , but Wolves and a few others have managed to go down again.

 
paz1967 - 10/8/2017 22:06

Pope John XXIII - 10/8/2017 20:25

Doesn't matter what you are paid. If you aren't good enough to win consistently an extra 5k in your pay packet isnt going to change that

It's not the wages we are paying thats the problem but who we have chosen to pay them to. For that disastrous turnover we need players up to getting promotion and making that situation temporary

The other issue is that our turnover just isn't good enough
Click to expand...

fook, im with pope on that pretty much
Click to expand...


I somehow think that will be of very little comfort to him.
 
Apollyon - 10/8/2017 21:54

You two are like Gripper Stebson and Imelda Davis

Im guessing Mao is the former and CP the latter
Click to expand...

????

Given your track record I dare not google either
 
fumanchew - 10/8/2017 20:47

EMT said it was for 2015/2016 and I took it too mean all staff not just players

And to think we had no actual ceo etc then makes you wonder who was being paid what
Click to expand...

Correct - all staff.

Some big wages off that bill since then, probably explains the sales of Henri & OBurke just to get momney in for FFP purposes.

Accs to end of 2017 will be interesting!


As QC Randall said - NFFC was not fit for purposes & perhaps explains the more prudent & shrewd approach being applied under the new regime - plus a significantly better focus on revenue & strategic partnerships.
 
Clueless buffoon who lived in a world of his own

Should never have been let anywhere near owning a football club

His family are lucky hes got out of it
 
This is nothing new, unfortunately. Forest's wages were 170% of turnover in 2014/15 and 177% of turnover in 2013/14.

Fawaz worsened a position that was unsustainable even under Doughty (120% ratio in his final season, 2011/12).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.