Next seasons budget | Page 2 | Vital Football

Next seasons budget

moonay said:
Yep, good post Th10. Undoubtedly, the answer will be a happy combination of the two ... in fact, let's not forget the other (third) key element of the experienced pro, pulling the strings. De Zeeuw, Kavanagh, McClean (last season) ... there's room for a cunning old pro. 😉
Click to expand...
Kavanagh was the final jigsaw saw piece for the promotion push class act. Took us over the line you cant compare De zeeuw he was class
 
Just watched that football game to night Burnley Sunderland if the best team team I have seen tonight in the championship god help us wouldn’t have stood a change against Paul jewels side with Roberts and Ellington and like a poster said before compared to Ellington joe is league one standard
 
If we are bringing in any experienced players this summer then I’d hope we can maybe keep Martin Kelly. I know he only played a few minutes for us but I liked the look of him. I’d guess his wages could be a problem but if he’d be willing to accept a pay cut and play regular football then I think he could be a big players for us. I can’t see us keeping Tiehi even though we’d all like to. I can see all the other loanees moving on as well.
 
It needs a Mike Ashley type approach. Talal is effectively saying they will only personally make up £2m shortfall each year.

Player wages are the biggest drain and the easiest way to cut a huge chunk. Many on here cite the geography for low crowds, but it also means local talent is also snapped up by the big clubs within 20 miles. Is an expensive academy ever going to pay for itself, or would it be better feeding off the cast-offs from the other local academies - thats what happened with Leighton Baines, who was initially binned by Everton as a kid, only to be sold back to them for £5m.

Increasing ST prices wont bring in much additional revenue, as for every three who are happy to pay an additional 25%, one wont be. Net result is 25% less ST holders and the same income.

Upsetting as it is, expecting the rugby club to pay far more rent isnt going to happen. Its already doubled in recent years from £300k to over £600k. West ham pay £2m for sole use of a 60,000 modern stadium in a prime London location with outstanding transport links. Seriously, what is then the going rate for using a 25,000 seat run down stadium in a slum part of a Northern town for 14 days a year?

As others have said, overnight hotel costs should be kept to a minimum, only involve the playing squad (the rest arent needed until kick-off) and anywhere within a 2hr drive should be done on the day. the kit man, non-playing squad members and all the cling-ons can travel on the day or pay their own hotel bill.
 
pie eater said:
It needs a Mike Ashley type approach. Talal is effectively saying they will only personally make up £2m shortfall each year.

Player wages are the biggest drain and the easiest way to cut a huge chunk. Many on here cite the geography for low crowds, but it also means local talent is also snapped up by the big clubs within 20 miles. Is an expensive academy ever going to pay for itself, or would it be better feeding off the cast-offs from the other local academies - thats what happened with Leighton Baines, who was initially binned by Everton as a kid, only to be sold back to them for £5m.

Increasing ST prices wont bring in much additional revenue, as for every three who are happy to pay an additional 25%, one wont be. Net result is 25% less ST holders and the same income.

Upsetting as it is, expecting the rugby club to pay far more rent isnt going to happen. Its already doubled in recent years from £300k to over £600k. West ham pay £2m for sole use of a 60,000 modern stadium in a prime London location with outstanding transport links. Seriously, what is then the going rate for using a 25,000 seat run down stadium in a slum part of a Northern town for 14 days a year?

As others have said, overnight hotel costs should be kept to a minimum, only involve the playing squad (the rest arent needed until kick-off) and anywhere within a 2hr drive should be done on the day. the kit man, non-playing squad members and all the cling-ons can travel on the day or pay their own hotel bill.
Click to expand...
Very disrespectful of you to refer to non-playing staff as "cling-ons". As with all workplaces there is an important role for everyone to play and even though some get more renumeration for their skills there is still a need for everyone and they should all be treated with respect for their efforts.
 
Kenny Morris said:
Very disrespectful of you to refer to non-playing staff as "cling-ons". As with all workplaces there is an important role for everyone to play and even though some get more renumeration for their skills there is still a need for everyone and they should all be treated with respect for their efforts.
Click to expand...

My reference to cling-ons was not directed at the hard-working backroom staff who, in all probability dont get free travel and overnight accommodation to away fixtures. It was directed to non-playing staff who travel with the matchday squad, and are put up in some swanky hotel at the clubs' expense for a match an hour away by road.

Are you seriously saying everyone who currently travels to, say Hull or Sheffield, or WBA, needs to stay overnight in a hotel at the club's expense? Or could they travel on the morning of the game and still have the same impact on the on-field performance?

Did Milky Brannigums travel with the squad to away games and stay at a hotel at the clubs' expense? If yes - why? Did he take training? Did he talk match day tactics? Did he give Max Power a night-time massage?

Or did he contribute sweet FA apart from perhaps paying the bill with the company Credit Card?
 
Last edited:
pie eater said:
Upsetting as it is, expecting the rugby club to pay far more rent isnt going to happen. Its already doubled in recent years from £300k to over £600k. West ham pay £2m for sole use of a 60,000 modern stadium in a prime London location with outstanding transport links. Seriously, what is then the going rate for using a 25,000 seat run down stadium in a slum part of a Northern town for 14 days a year?
Click to expand...

West Ham’s ‘sweetheart deal‘ for the London Stadium is a national disgrace and as such it shouldn’t be held up as any form of example or precedent as I am sure you must be aware.

I’ve gone on record on here that I see the Rugby rent as an overblown issue and don’t believe there is some fundamental salvation to be gained from it.
Nonetheless I don’t know what Huddersfield Giants pay (on circa 5k crowd) to use their venue but in any event having recently visited that ground I can confirm that the area is not an area of outstanding natural beauty and the ground itself is a Bloody good walk from any main roads let alone train station or transport hub.

Why you think you should use the words ‘slum part of a Northern town’ only you can answer. If this is your true opinion then you are probably in the wrong town …and only you can remedy that.
 
Last season wasn't 1m+ spent on a multi year catering deal and also a few million spent on estate maintenance, Stadium, training grounds etc. 90% or so of our highest earners are reserve players so you could probably take 3m of each of the wage bill and general spend totals and be down to around 13m spend quite quickly.

Clearly in line with other ground sharing clubs, rent being up to 1m would be a fair figure, add in an improvement in marketing and better sponsorship deals to improve the income. We will get some transfer fee installments of likely a few hundred thousand. Any potential sales would increase the income too. We have to be looking at trying to get the base income from I think the 8.3m someone posted earlier this thread to around 10m. Then we could spend around 12m or so which if the likes of Sheff Wed, Derby and Ipswich get promoted would be one of the top few budgets in League One. If we bring in youngsters players with potential and sell 1 or 2 each year for a few million profit then that will naturally rise the amount of money we can spend each year, to create a gradual improvement in the squad. A model we used to adopt pre Premier League relegation and were starting to do again under Cook. One that Brentford copied from us to great effect.
 
Last edited:
Ooooooo to Be a Wiganer said:
Just watched that football game to night Burnley Sunderland if the best team team I have seen tonight in the championship god help us wouldn’t have stood a change against Paul jewels side with Roberts and Ellington and like a poster said before compared to Ellington joe is league one standard
Click to expand...
Face it we have not had a side in either League 1 or The Championship that are anywhere near Jewell's sides and we certainly haven't had a manager anywhere near him nor played football that equally brought results and entertained the way it did.
 
Just read Ipswich's accounts. Their overall wage bill was a mental 16m but they had about 50 less employees than us. No breakdown in how much of wage bill was players.

Bolton haven't posted their accounts yet (they are overdue) but looking at the year before they had an overall wage bill of 7m. They had a similar number of employees to us but half of that number were hotel staff. So taking out the hotel staff we have about double the number of employees. But again there is no break down of how much of the wage bill is playing staff.

I'm really struggling to understand how we seem to have such a higher number of people and salary cost on the non playing side. When you compare it to other clubs it just doesn't seem to make much sense.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Just read Ipswich's accounts. Their overall wage bill was a mental 16m but they had about 50 less employees than us. No breakdown in how much of wage bill was players.

Bolton haven't posted their accounts yet (they are overdue) but looking at the year before they had an overall wage bill of 7m. They had a similar number of employees to us but half of that number were hotel staff. So taking out the hotel staff we have about double the number of employees. But again there is no break down of how much of the wage bill is playing staff.

I'm really struggling to understand how we seem to have such a higher number of people and salary cost on the non playing side. When you compare it to other clubs it just doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...

It’s an interesting question. There is quite an anomaly and I suspect it’ll be something the new CEO will have to get to the bottom of. What we don’t know is how many fulltime employees there are. For example they’ve recently advertised for a big screen operator which will clearly just be a matchday role so that salary will be negligible. Undoubtedly the club will need to start trimming the fat to become more a lean and efficient organisation given budgetary constraints.

As a supporter base we are naturally now sensitive when it comes to viewing our accounts, but the reality is we are not an outlier and many other clubs have eye watering amount of debt. The difference is having an owner willing to absorb it.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Just read Ipswich's accounts. Their overall wage bill was a mental 16m but they had about 50 less employees than us. No breakdown in how much of wage bill was players.

Bolton haven't posted their accounts yet (they are overdue) but looking at the year before they had an overall wage bill of 7m. They had a similar number of employees to us but half of that number were hotel staff. So taking out the hotel staff we have about double the number of employees. But again there is no break down of how much of the wage bill is playing staff.

I'm really struggling to understand how we seem to have such a higher number of people and salary cost on the non playing side. When you compare it to other clubs it just doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...
Shazza bought Horwich because of the Hotel. Well she wouldn't buy the club without it. Another piece of favouritism by the EFL who gave them yet another stay of execution after the hotel was completed after the deadline for the purchase of the club.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Just read Ipswich's accounts. Their overall wage bill was a mental 16m but they had about 50 less employees than us. No breakdown in how much of wage bill was players.

Bolton haven't posted their accounts yet (they are overdue) but looking at the year before they had an overall wage bill of 7m. They had a similar number of employees to us but half of that number were hotel staff. So taking out the hotel staff we have about double the number of employees. But again there is no break down of how much of the wage bill is playing staff.

I'm really struggling to understand how we seem to have such a higher number of people and salary cost on the non playing side. When you compare it to other clubs it just doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about the hotels staff being shown on the accounts of the football club?

I would have thought that the Hotel business would have had separate accounts.

I haven't checked this and you may be correct but it seems strange that the football club and hotel are not separated as if one fails it could drag the other down. Which is why businesses normally have a holding company with the businesses split into individual companies for accounting purposes, much like we had when DW was the owner with the Stadium Co. and Football Club.
 
Just had a peek at the accounts for the holding company, Football Ventures, they do show the hotel staff and football staff as separate figures.

What I would surmise is that the figure given for the hotel staff includes matchday staff for hospitality and conference facilities, which is included in our inclusive staff figure.

The anomaly for me is that there are no figures shown for the ground staff, medical staff and academy staff within their figure for the playing staff.

Their figure for the playing side is headed " Management, Administration and Football Players". It seems strange to lump the aforesaid staff into the heading they have used.

Edit:
The accounts I have seen are for the second year of Football Ventures being in control, it will be interesting to see the difference in this years accounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.