Wolves. Can you imagine if

[Cjay]

Leeds on the last article i saw done by some clever person far better with numbers then I were/are well clear of FFP.

About £20million breathing space i think it was, we are one of the few not in danger of breaching FFP as far as what I've read suggests.

Not surprised about Wolves, they went for it and got lucky, many dont.

 

[Grizzly blade]

So, say by some miracle (otherwise known as Chris Wilder and Alan Knill) we go up, anyone care to speculate what our losses will be?
I know it won’t be a complete surprise as I’m sure Uddersfield did it before us, but it just goes to show what a spectacular job some folk at the club are doing.

I would like to guess we may lose up to 10 million going up when the player sales are all added up for this season, and that would put us in a pretty good position to just stick to the same formula....by spending sensibly and wisely, and giving the majority who got us there a chance of keeping us up.
Go down....we pocket a very healthy profit, and use that to manage a few more sensible but strong pushes at getting back up again. (Assuming Wilder isn’t happy to stay)
But stay up, and we not only make a profit....but being assured further increases in turnover for the following season we can start to look at genuine premier league club building, both on the pitch and off it. New stands, further matchday hospitality income streams, and lucrative opportunities for further investment from outside billionaires.

It’s a crucial 11 games coming up!

 

[alcoblade]

I'm not the one saying two figures that are 40% apart are similar.
Maybe my planet teaches maths at school.

Clubs lose between a minimum of £5M (I'd guess) to towards £60M (as stated in the OP).

I get it that you yourself can't grasp it, but in terms of budgets, the £14m loss is in the same group of "under spenders" as us, at £10M and rising.

You don't need to repeat that you can't grasp that (simple for most) scenario.

We get it that you can work out what percentage 4 is of 10. Are you seeking to take home class hamster, or something?

On to long division for you.

 

[andy m]

Clubs lose between a minimum of £5M (I'd guess) to towards £60M (as stated in the OP).

I get it that you yourself can't grasp it, but in terms of budgets, the £14m loss is in the same group of "under spenders" as us.

But you don't need to repeat that you can't grasp that.

We get it that you can work out what percentage 4 is of 10. So on to long division for you.

So you are just making up figures and them putting them into imaginary groups also made up by yourself.
Please accept my apologies for not grasping these imaginary concepts you have. I would offer to try twice as hard to understand in future but in your head that is also probably similar.

 

[alcoblade]

So you are just making up figures and them putting them into imaginary groups also made up by yourself.
Please accept my apologies for not grasping these imaginary concepts you have. I would offer to try twice as hard to understand in future but in your head that is also probably similar.

The figure of £10M is in our accounts. Do you think we lose less than everyone else?

The figure of £50 plus million is quoted in the OP, and is what we were comparing to, and competing with.

If you can't grasp that £14m is much more similar to us, at the lower end, than Wolves, at the higher end, then there's really no helping you.

The figures aren't imaginary, but if it let's you shuffle off feeling proud of your 4/10 * 100 = 40% revelation, then away you go.

 

[andy m]

The figure of £10M is in our accounts. Do you think we lose less than everyone else?

The figure of £50 plus million is quoted in the OP, and is what we were comparing to, and competing with.

If you can't grasp that £14m is much more similar to us, at the lower end, than Wolves, at the higher end, then there's really no helping you.

The figures aren't imaginary, but if it let's you shuffle off feeling proud of your 4/10 * 100 = 40% revelation, then away you go.

So your point was that 10 is closer to 14 than 14 is to 50. Well done for such an enlightening observation.

 

[CornwallBlade]

So, say by some miracle (otherwise known as Chris Wilder and Alan Knill) we go up, anyone care to speculate what our losses will be?
I know it won’t be a complete surprise as I’m sure Uddersfield did it before us, but it just goes to show what a spectacular job some folk at the club are doing.

I would like to guess we may lose up to 10 million going up when the player sales are all added up for this season, and that would put us in a pretty good position to just stick to the same formula....by spending sensibly and wisely, and giving the majority who got us there a chance of keeping us up.
Go down....we pocket a very healthy profit, and use that to manage a few more sensible but strong pushes at getting back up again. (Assuming Wilder isn’t happy to stay)
But stay up, and we not only make a profit....but being assured further increases in turnover for the following season we can start to look at genuine premier league club building, both on the pitch and off it. New stands, further matchday hospitality income streams, and lucrative opportunities for further investment from outside billionaires.

It’s a crucial 11 games coming up!

I’m not convinced that PL status would be the endless pot of gold some might think it is. I believe the PL club income from tv and prize money for finishing position etc. ranges from £150 to £95million per season. Now that might seem a fortune but if Wolves wage bill is £45m and we need to spend, say £100m to upgrade the squad in year 1 plus what, £50m per season thereafter? without the massive off pitch income of the top 5 it gets quite marginal. You can see how a short spell in the PL can be followed by financial ruin if you get relegated and can’t get back within a couple of seasons. Without a billionaire to underwrite all this it’s a perilous business.
Of course if CW is genius enough to keep us up for a couple seasons with largely a similar squad, that changes everything. History would suggest that it can’t be done though.

 

[alcoblade]

So your point was that 10 is closer to 14 than 14 is to 50. Well done for such an enlightening observation.

That simple - and you still couldn't fucking grasp it!

 

[gordoncharles]

So, say by some miracle (otherwise known as Chris Wilder and Alan Knill) we go up, anyone care to speculate what our losses will be?
I know it won’t be a complete surprise as I’m sure Uddersfield did it before us, but it just goes to show what a spectacular job some folk at the club are doing.

I would like to guess we may lose up to 10 million going up when the player sales are all added up for this season, and that would put us in a pretty good position to just stick to the same formula....by spending sensibly and wisely, and giving the majority who got us there a chance of keeping us up.
Go down....we pocket a very healthy profit, and use that to manage a few more sensible but strong pushes at getting back up again. (Assuming Wilder isn’t happy to stay)
But stay up, and we not only make a profit....but being assured further increases in turnover for the following season we can start to look at genuine premier league club building, both on the pitch and off it. New stands, further matchday hospitality income streams, and lucrative opportunities for further investment from outside billionaires.

It’s a crucial 11 games coming up!

I don't want to piss on anyone's chip butty but honestly, there is no prospect of a club of our standing making money out of the PL unless we can get ourselves relegated in the first season.

And apart from the top six plus Everton there's no such thing as an "established" PL club as Stoke, WBA and Swansea proved last season.

Eventually all apart from those elite clubs will be relegated, and that's when the financial problems start. All sorts of people can help explain why, maybe Tony Xia or John Madejski could do a seminar?

 

[Houston_Blade]

Leeds on the last article i saw done by some clever person far better with numbers then I were/are well clear of FFP.

About £20million breathing space i think it was, we are one of the few not in danger of breaching FFP as far as what I've read suggests.

Not surprised about Wolves, they went for it and got lucky, many dont.

The wage bill quoted at Leeds really surprised me. I think it's just that given the Ridsdale era and all the nutters since I just expect Leeds to throw massive wages at everyone, seems that this is not the case.

 

[Chali 2na]

FFP. What a fecking farce.

Indeed. That is what the 'rules' have created. Rather than even trying to stay within the limits, certain clubs are now going all out in their attempts to get promoted and put themselves beyond the reach of any sanctions.

Isn't FFP calculated over 3 years? (I don't think wolves broke the rules)

Unless they get relegated of course

Who, Wolves? Can't see that happening any time soon.

I don’t really get the financial incentive of getting promoted as I’m sure all these players, plus the ones they have bought were all on substantial wage increases which will negate the huge Premiership tv money. Owning a Premier League really has to be a play thing for a billionaire, McCabe is really way out of his league up there. The whole thing has spiraled out of control

How do you not understand the incentive? Making a profit or breaking even is better than perpetual losses, hence why everyone is so desperate to get to the PL.

I don't want to piss on anyone's chip butty but honestly, there is no prospect of a club of our standing making money out of the PL unless we can get ourselves relegated in the first season.

Bournemouth made £15m, Burnley made £27m, Southampton made £43m, Watford made £3m. Link

Getting relegated would not increase our chances of making a profit.

 

[finlaytheblade]

Can’t get done for it though can they. They took the gamble and it paid off. One of the few clubs that it has worked for. Fair play to them.

The problem with this is punishment is retrospective if it fails , successful and they scoff at the rules.
Somehow ( don't know how ) punishment needs to take away the success of it ,stop them getting promotion. That's the fair way but unfortunately life is isn't always fair.

 

[Boxer Blade]

Cannot see wolves getting relegated anytime soon either, point is the EFL would be waiting, it's a risk probably worth taking if your backers are as rich as wolves are

 

[gordoncharles]

Bournemouth made £15m, Burnley made £27m, Southampton made £43m, Watford made £3m. Link

Getting relegated would not increase our chances of making a profit.

2016-17 was I think the first year of the latest TV deal. That meant wages hadn't caught up with the clubs' increases in income.

Southampton's broadcasting income for example went up by £52m that year whereas their total wage bill "only" went up £27m. They also made £12m on their player trading. Their income won't have gone up like that in 2017-18 but I'm certain their wage bill will have as they, like the rest, scramble to avoid the inevitable relegation at some point in the near to mid-distant future.

They sold Van Dijk for big money of course so they'll turn a good profit, but that comes at the cost of their team and increased their chances of relegation.

Similarly, Bournemouth's TV revenue went up by £49m (TV accounts for 91% of Bournemouth's income) but their wages only went up by £12m.that year.

So a promoted side can make a big profit in its first year as its cost base doesn't catch up with the enormous increase in income.

After that those returns will diminish till you throw everything at it in a vain attempt to maintain your PL status.

Despite the parachute payments few teams make any money when relegated either, the only ones I can think of are those where the owners stopped putting any serious money into it, like Hull and Blackpool.

 

[Rob86]

The problem with this is punishment is retrospective if it fails , successful and they scoff at the rules.
Somehow ( don't know how ) punishment needs to take away the success of it ,stop them getting promotion. That's the fair way but unfortunately life is isn't always fair.

But like Chali 2na says, it’s calculated over 3 years. They would have been required to turn a £30m, perhaps nearer £50m, profit when wages are taken into account, in year 3. This probably would have been very unlikely but perhaps not impossible as they did have assets to sell. Is their Premier League income taken into account this year ? If they come down they will have parachute payments in their first year back in the EFL. Will the EFL even take into account the years before they got promoted. As far as I am aware it’s only Wolves and Bournemouth who have pushed the limits and have got promoted and neither look like dropping back down anytime soon.

Could be a big year ahead for the EFL in dealing with FFP. Brum, Derby and pigs have spent big (or had big wage bills) for at least 3 years now. So what are they going to do about it !

 

[Chali 2na]

2016-17 was I think the first year of the latest TV deal. That meant wages hadn't caught up with the clubs' increases in income.

Southampton's broadcasting income for example went up by £52m that year whereas their total wage bill "only" went up £27m. They also made £12m on their player trading. Their income won't have gone up like that in 2017-18 but I'm certain their wage bill will have as they, like the rest, scramble to avoid the inevitable relegation at some point in the near to mid-distant future.

They sold Van Dijk for big money of course so they'll turn a good profit, but that comes at the cost of their team and increased their chances of relegation.

Similarly, Bournemouth's TV revenue went up by £49m (TV accounts for 91% of Bournemouth's income) but their wages only went up by £12m.that year.

So a promoted side can make a big profit in its first year as its cost base doesn't catch up with the enormous increase in income.

After that those returns will diminish till you throw everything at it in a vain attempt to maintain your PL status.

Despite the parachute payments few teams make any money when relegated either, the only ones I can think of are those where the owners stopped putting any serious money into it, like Hull and Blackpool.

So are you saying that no club (excluding the bigger sides who we're not really comparable to) make a profit? And if they do, their relegation is "inevitable"?

Also, in your last paragraph, you admit that "Despite the parachute payments few teams make any money when relegated" - Which I agree with.

Surely, as a statement, that is at odds with your earlier comment:
"there is no prospect of a club of our standing making money out of the PL unless we can get ourselves relegated in the first season."

 

[Chali 2na]

Cannot see wolves getting relegated anytime soon either, point is the EFL would be waiting, it's a risk probably worth taking if your backers are as rich as wolves are

Why would the EFL be waiting? What rule have Wolves broken?

 

[SittingontheBall]

The problem with this is punishment is retrospective if it fails , successful and they scoff at the rules.
Somehow ( don't know how ) punishment needs to take away the success of it ,stop them getting promotion. That's the fair way but unfortunately life is isn't always fair.

Clubs have to provide EFL with their financial data around end of
March. Deduct one point per million pounds spent on wages from end of season points total to determine final table for each league.

Draconian, yes but would focus minds on balancing risk and reward better.

Never happen though, too many vested interest money men in football clubs,

 

[gordoncharles]

So are you saying that no club (excluding the bigger sides who we're not really comparable to) make a profit? And if they do, their relegation is "inevitable"?

Also, in your last paragraph, you admit that "Despite the parachute payments few teams make any money when relegated" - Which I agree with.

Surely, as a statement, that is at odds with your earlier comment:
"there is no prospect of a club of our standing making money out of the PL unless we can get ourselves relegated in the first season."

Perhaps I'm not explaining this right.

You can bump along pretty much at break even in the PL, except when you're in danger of relegation and the panic button is pushed. I mean, what's a £5m-£8m profit when it costs you £20m to sign even a mediocre, unproven player and your wage bill is £80-100m?

And yes, apart from seven clubs relegation in the next few seasons is absolutely inevitable for all of them. Stoke and WBA were the longest serviing PL members outside the elite group and they both went down last season.

The longest serving teams now are Southampton and West Ham, both in their 7th season back, then it's Palace with 6 seasons and Leicester with 5.

When the inevitable relegation occurs what small gains you've made over the years will be instantly wiped out.

Unless you can get relegated in season one, as then you could well have a £20-30m surplus. I'd say kerching, but that wouldn't last us long in the Championship either.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Has somebody stolen our ‘other football’ section?

Nope, it was closed due to necessary budget cuts.

 

[Weasel]

Why do some people keep mentioning losses of £10m for United? I thought the latest figures had Utd showing pre-tax losses of £1.9m, down from £5.7m the previous financial year?

 

[Chali 2na]

You can bump along pretty much at break even in the PL, except when you're in danger of relegation and the panic button is pushed. I mean, what's a £5m-£8m profit when it costs you £20m to sign even a mediocre, unproven player and your wage bill is £80-100m?

A small profit is preferable to a large loss.

As for the £20m (mediocre) players: Brooks for Bournemouth cost far less and he's been anything but mediocre; if we had £20m to spend on players, I'd guess Wilder would be able to purchase some exciting players - being in the PL would mean we're (the fans) watching better players on both sides, isn't that what we'd want?

And yes, apart from seven clubs relegation in the next few seasons is absolutely inevitable for all of them. Stoke and WBA were the longest serviing PL members outside the elite group and they both went down last season.

The longest serving teams now are Southampton and West Ham, both in their 7th season back, then it's Palace with 6 seasons and Leicester with 5.

When the inevitable relegation occurs what small gains you've made over the years will be instantly wiped out.

Unless you can get relegated in season one, as then you could well have a £20-30m surplus. I'd say kerching, but that wouldn't last us long in the Championship either.

Either I don't understand the meaning of the word inevitable, or you're using it wrong.

I accept that, eventually after X seasons, every club outside that top 8 would likely eventually suffer relegation, so in that sense it's inevitable.
However, X depends on how well your club is run; of the clubs you mention, LCFC and WHFC don't look in danger of going down anytime soon, so I'd hardly describe potential relegation as inevitable for them in that respect.

As for CPFC and SFC - I doubt either club will go down this year, and if they play their cards right they're both capable of kicking on and avoiding the drop next year too.

 

[gordoncharles]

A small profit is preferable to a large loss.

I don't want to keep this going between us as everyone else will no doubt be very bored so I'll personally stop going on about it after this post, but my point is that even if you do manage to turn a small profit in the PL, the potential losses following relegation are magnified many times over.

And without a continual rise in broadcasting revenues to keep income ahead of salaries I don't accept that the bulk of PL clubs will make any sort of profit in the future either.

And you mention David Brooks but Bournemouth spent a net £59m on players last summer. Southampton spent £37m and Fulham £79m

And nobody thought Stoke or Swansea would be in any danger of going down soon a couple of years ago either.

 

[PaulHalfway]

To mitigate Cardiff's situation a little bit their accounts do say that £23 million of that £37 million loss is down to promotion bonuses and "contractual commitments" from being promoted, so they'd only have lost a mere £14m if they hadn't gone up.

And in fairness Wolves enormous loss no doubt also includes substantial bonuses.

Wow 23 million in promotion bonuses, wonder how much we would have to pay out if we went up

 

[Chali 2na]

I don't want to keep this going between us as everyone else will no doubt be very bored so I'll personally stop going on about it after this post, but my point is that even if you do manage to turn a small profit in the PL, the potential losses following relegation are magnified many times over.

That assumes relegation is an not to distant certainty: it isn't.

And you mention David Brooks but Bournemouth spent a net £59m on players last summer. Southampton spent £37m and Fulham £79m

What's your point here? Bournemouth fans get the benifit of seeing better players and are in no danger of relegation I'm the foreseeable.

And nobody thought Stoke or Swansea would be in any danger of going down soon a couple of years ago either.

Not me, Swansea had been failing to adequately replace players under their new owners and Stokes transfer dealings over the last few seasons have been atrocious.

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

Isn't FFP calculated over 3 years? (I don't think wolves broke the rules)



Who, Wolves? Can't see that happening any time soon.



How do you not understand the incentive? Making a profit or breaking even is better than perpetual losses, hence why everyone is so desperate to get to the PL.



Bournemouth made £15m, Burnley made £27m, Southampton made £43m, Watford made £3m. Link

Getting relegated would not increase our chances of making a profit.

I understand the incentive but the reality is quite different apart from the top 6, who can really tap into the commercial side globally.
No other club really has that global attraction and when their fans demand ‘going to the next level’ like Everton, for example, then costs quickly start negating the huge income from tv

 

[BushBlade]

I don't want to keep this going between us as everyone else will no doubt be very bored so I'll personally stop going on about it after this post, but my point is that even if you do manage to turn a small profit in the PL, the potential losses following relegation are magnified many times over.

And without a continual rise in broadcasting revenues to keep income ahead of salaries I don't accept that the bulk of PL clubs will make any sort of profit in the future either.

And you mention David Brooks but Bournemouth spent a net £59m on players last summer. Southampton spent £37m and Fulham £79m

And nobody thought Stoke or Swansea would be in any danger of going down soon a couple of years ago either.

The point Chali was responding to is that clubs don’t make a profit in the PL and there is no financial incentive to get promoted.

PL clubs in the main make a profit and championship clubs in the main make losses.

 

[8lade]

I'm not the one saying two figures that are 40% apart are similar.
Maybe my planet teaches maths at school.

I know this argument has blown over but just like SYP I'm going to wade in and kick it off again (but hopefully with a better outcome):
You're both right one speaking mathematically and the other philosophically.

 

[PaulHalfway]

It’s very easy to spend a lot of money on players who don’t work or are not good enough
If you watch the Netflix series on Sunderland it totally explains how not to run a club in the Premier League and they were having crowds of 40k every week
Buy loads of foreign players no one has ever heard of for tens of millions of pounds and put them on £45k per week but they turn out to be rubbish
Don’t put clauses in contracts to reduce the salary if relegated
Buy Jack Roswell for millions on a massive contract
So they were getting 100 million on the Sky deal and managed to completely make a mess of it by poor player recruitment and management

 

[Chali 2na]

I understand the incentive but the reality is quite different apart from the top 6, who can really tap into the commercial side globally.

Their global appeal may not be as good as the big 6, but it's a lot better than championship clubs.

No other club really has that global attraction and when their fans demand ‘going to the next level’ like Everton, for example, then costs quickly start negating the huge income from tv

I disagree.