Board Caution

[Surrey Blade]

The delay in getting a striker signing over the line may well be a frustration for our fans, but, given the economic turmoil caused by Covid, the Board has to be measured in its use of our limited resources. I know many who have cancelled Sky Sports, disillusioned by football in empty stadia, and wonder whether that income stream will come under further pressure. The sad reality of high unemployment will also impact football's finances, particularly now that the prospect of crowds retuning anytime soon has evaporated. And yet players still expect huge wages, transfer fees and agents' costs remain crazily high. There appears to have been no recalibration of football's economy at the top level. We don't want our clubs long term future to be jeopardised by overspending at this challenging time.

 

[Blade56]

Screw that, spunk the munneh

 

[knowsnowt]

The delay in getting a striker signing over the line may well be a frustration for our fans, but, given the economic turmoil caused by Covid, the Board has to be measured in its use of our limited resources. I know many who have cancelled Sky Sports, disillusioned by football in empty stadia, and wonder whether that income stream will come under further pressure. The sad reality of high unemployment will also impact football's finances, particularly now that the prospect of crowds retuning anytime soon has evaporated. And yet players still expect huge wages, transfer fees and agents' costs remain crazily high. There appears to have been no recalibration of football's economy at the top level. We don't want our clubs long term future to be jeopardised by overspending at this challenging time.

Morning Prince..

 

[Houston_Blade]

It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't bring a decent striker in.

If we are a PL team we will have revenue of £100m+ irrespective of Covid. It's not like anyone pays £20m up front for a player now and the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract. Burnley's wage bill was £87m in the last financial year, I would guess that ours is sub £50m so we can afford to add players on £2m+ a year and stay within a respectable number.

We can afford a £20m + wages for a striker, don't be convinced otherwise.

 

[MobileBlade]

It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't bring a decent striker in.

If we are a PL team we will have revenue of £100m+ irrespective of Covid. It's not like anyone pays £20m up front for a player now and the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract. Burnley's wage bill was £87m in the last financial year, I would guess that ours is sub £50m so we can afford to add players on £2m+ a year and stay within a respectable number.

We can afford a £20m + wages for a striker, don't be convinced otherwise.

Only problem is £2m wages when you add employer costs is nearer £3m. £20m over 4 year contract then becomes £8m a year. If you have not fan revenue and your only income is tv that can vary from £80m to £160m dependant on position in leaguem if you budget on £100m then to take out £8m on one player is huge when you have a 25 man squad to consider. And that is before you have the costs of running the business for the rest of the first team squad division and and the non playing side.

 

[Bladezz]

Don’t get me wrong we all knew we needed the striker early but as long as they see the mistakes and then rectify them there isn’t much more you can do or expect.

It looks like CW has pressured them into a striker but it’s better for us this season. Plus if the worst case and we went down we have the best championship squad around.

 

[Rodley]

Spent some reyt clover this last 18 months TBF.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

I’ve just retrieved a large proportion of my breakfast from the table having read that Villa are paying Ross Barkley’s wages in full for his season-long loan......

......£110,000 per week

Confirmation that the game has well and truly gone.

 

[robbiez666]

Spent some reyt clover this last 18 months TBF.

Some of the demands from our fans on here for the board to spend money are ridiculous. Some seem to think that the Prince has a secret room at Bramall Lane filled with gold and that Chris has to go an beg him to spend a couple of coins every time he wants to buy someone.

We've spent significantly more than we ever have before in the last two years. No one considers all the extra money in improved contracts or the amount of money we need to spend on off-field things like the ground and training facilities.

Some people seem to think £20 million is nothing.

We're not a rich club. We're a newish club in this league. The Prince has just bought the club.

People need to chill. We need a striker. It would in many ways make sense to loan if you think Moose is going to contribute when back fit.

 

[GuangzhouBlade]

The delay in getting a striker signing over the line may well be a frustration for our fans, but, given the economic turmoil caused by Covid, the Board has to be measured in its use of our limited resources. I know many who have cancelled Sky Sports, disillusioned by football in empty stadia, and wonder whether that income stream will come under further pressure. The sad reality of high unemployment will also impact football's finances, particularly now that the prospect of crowds retuning anytime soon has evaporated. And yet players still expect huge wages, transfer fees and agents' costs remain crazily high. There appears to have been no recalibration of football's economy at the top level. We don't want our clubs long term future to be jeopardised by overspending at this challenging time.

The frustration for me isn't so much not wanting to spend 100's of millions it's using what is presumably a large chunk of our budget on Ramsdale and two full backs. Like others have said 20 million is a lot of money for us and a solid "older" keeper could have been singed for much less and you could argue that we had a reasonable amount of depth defensively with Osborn, Bash, Robinson etc.

Since Wilder said at the end of last season that the top of the pitch needed strengthening, we have signed Burke but this meant letting Robinson go, Freeman has gone out on loan and we've lost Moose to Injury (no one's fault but was unlikely to play 38 games in any season).

To not have signed attacking options by now is a bit ridiculous on both Wilder and the board's part. Wilder can keep saying he is asking the board but the fact remains we've probably spent north of £30 million on players plus covering wages for loans so money has been made available and spent.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Only problem is £2m wages when you add employer costs is nearer £3m. £20m over 4 year contract then becomes £8m a year. If you have not fan revenue and your only income is tv that can vary from £80m to £160m dependant on position in leaguem if you budget on £100m then to take out £8m on one player is huge when you have a 25 man squad to consider. And that is before you have the costs of running the business for the rest of the first team squad division and and the non playing side.

But that assumes that you are getting nothing into the club from transfer fees, for every £5m a year on the amortisation of one player, you might be getting a gain on the sale of another player. I know that this is not necessarily true for us at the moment because we've not sold anyone recently, but in the fullness of time we will start to sell players and given that we paid £2.50 for most of our squad, we'll make some money.

Simplistically our revenue/costs should look something like this without all the noise. The TV income is a low estimate but obviously this season we can forget about matchday income, at the same time some of the operating costs reduce.

We can afford to add £8-10m in wages/fees and still stay sustainable in my opinion, as long as we don't go down.

 

[Blade56]

Spent some reyt clover this last 18 months TBF.

Earned some reyt clover this past 18 months anall

 

[MobileBlade]

But that assumes that you are getting nothing into the club from transfer fees, for every £5m a year on the amortisation of one player, you might be getting a gain on the sale of another player. I know that this is not necessarily true for us at the moment because we've not sold anyone recently, but in the fullness of time we will start to sell players and given that we paid £2.50 for most of our squad, we'll make some money.

Simplistically our revenue/costs should look something like this without all the noise. The TV income is a low estimate but obviously this season we can forget about matchday income, at the same time some of the operating costs reduce.

We can afford to add £8-10m in wages/fees and still stay sustainable in my opinion, as long as we don't go down.

View attachment 93568

Might have taken bottom end of TV Income but our matchday revenue on last full accounts was £5m which was the promotion season. Yes it will have gone up somewhat but not sure if it will have gone up fivefold - especially given the season ticket revenue was at Championship prices and this is something like 70% of gate receipts.

The "other costs" for the club were £7m in the promotion season. These will also have increased significantly particularly with the increase in non-playing staff wages and increase in staff numbers.

Agree re player sales but other than Brooks, we have not sold anything of significance in last two years - look at the shitstorm with the Robinson - Burke swap which has generated circa £3m by all account. Imagine if we sell a player for any sort of decent money.

In the last accounts there were 113 in the football division of the club (and 79 in the none football). Both these numbers would have increased significantly.

Until we get the next accounts it is all guess work. They used to come out just before Christmas but the last accounts were not released until March (they have until June - we are never late with ours unlike across the city). We know the players wages are loaded with bonuses that double their wages.

In cash terms, we had best part of £22m carried over from the championship promotion season. Add to this the amortisation of players already purchased since promotion and then reassess.

I would do it but got a load of Furlough to sort out!!

 

[Houston_Blade]

Might have taken bottom end of TV Income but our matchday revenue on last full accounts was £5m which was the promotion season. Yes it will have gone up somewhat but not sure if it will have gone up fivefold - especially given the season ticket revenue was at Championship prices and this is something like 70% of gate receipts.

The "other costs" for the club were £7m in the promotion season. These will also have increased significantly particularly with the increase in non-playing staff wages and increase in staff numbers.

Agree re player sales but other than Brooks, we have not sold anything of significance in last two years - look at the shitstorm with the Robinson - Burke swap which has generated circa £3m by all account. Imagine if we sell a player for any sort of decent money.

In the last accounts there were 113 in the football division of the club (and 79 in the none football). Both these numbers would have increased significantly.

Until we get the next accounts it is all guess work. They used to come out just before Christmas but the last accounts were not released until March (they have until June - we are never late with ours unlike across the city). We know the players wages are loaded with bonuses that double their wages.

In cash terms, we had best part of £22m carried over from the championship promotion season. Add to this the amortisation of players already purchased since promotion and then reassess.

I would do it but got a load of Furlough to sort out!!

I think the point is that if Burnley can do it with a revenue of £137m and a wage bill of £84m we should be able to add to our squad without going anywhere near a loss.

We will be at least £25m lower on wages and won't be that far adrift on other costs so we should be able to sustain signings without going bankrupt.

Matchday revenue I reckon is around £750k a game in ticket money (30k x average £25 per ticket to take into account ST's and pay on the day) plus some pie, pint and programme sales. It will be a lot more than £5m in the PL in my opinion.

 

[MobileBlade]

I think the point is that if Burnley can do it with a revenue of £137m and a wage bill of £84m we should be able to add to our squad without going anywhere near a loss.

We will be at least £25m lower on wages and won't be that far adrift on other costs so we should be able to sustain signings without going bankrupt.

Matchday revenue I reckon is around £750k a game in ticket money (30k x average £25 per ticket to take into account ST's and pay on the day) plus some pie, pint and programme sales. It will be a lot more than £5m in the PL in my opinion.

Most tickets were not £25. Season tickets for adults were around £19 to £21 per game - Kids/OAPs significantly less than that. And there is the five game refund that will need to be shown in the accounts.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Most tickets were not £25. Season tickets for adults were around £19 to £21 per game - Kids/OAPs significantly less than that. And there is the five game refund that will need to be shown in the accounts.

Fair enough on the ST's average, although mine works out at £27 per game based on £515/19 games.

I'm ignoring the covid nonsense because it's a one-off and we shouldn't be basing player purchase decisions on something that will likely impact only 1 or 2 years' revenue. If we don't spend money and go down then we will have a lot less money than if we stay up and Covid is still an issue.

 

[robbiez666]

What some people fail to realise with our spending is that there's every possibility the league will have to shut down again and that we will have to pay back a lot of the TV revenue. We have to keep money back in case this happens.

 

[MobileBlade]

Fair enough on the ST's average, although mine works out at £27 per game based on £515/19 games.

I'm ignoring the covid nonsense because it's a one-off and we shouldn't be basing player purchase decisions on something that will likely impact only 1 or 2 years' revenue. If we don't spend money and go down then we will have a lot less money than if we stay up and Covid is still an issue.

Not disagreeing. You still have to cut your cloth though.

 

[originaltrueblade]

I’ve never known us spend this sort of money before....still pinching myself to be honest

 

[Charlieblade]

It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't bring a decent striker in.

If we are a PL team we will have revenue of £100m+ irrespective of Covid. It's not like anyone pays £20m up front for a player now and the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract. Burnley's wage bill was £87m in the last financial year, I would guess that ours is sub £50m so we can afford to add players on £2m+ a year and stay within a respectable number.

We can afford a £20m + wages for a striker, don't be convinced otherwise.

I could agree with that, but at what cost? Training ground improvements, Academy status, Ground improvements, property ownership .......
Things do need to grow, including the wage budget, but it has to be done sustainably. How much ‘rainy day money’ do you think there is left?
Maybe a key player gets a long term injury, and Wilder, rightly, demands a big cash injection for a replacement ....oh wait......

 

[Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen]

It's great to want a Hasselblad, but the future projections show you can only afford a Vivicam.

 

[Harrisblade]

What some people fail to realise with our spending is that there's every possibility the league will have to shut down again and that we will have to pay back a lot of the TV revenue. We have to keep money back in case this happens.

Why won't they just televise more games like they did last season.
The tv deal should only be affected if there are no games played, not whether spectators attend or not.
(Sorry Robbie, didn't read your post properly- but really hoping Covid numbers won't be so bad as to stop football completely!)

 

[Houston_Blade]

I could agree with that, but at what cost? Training ground improvements, Academy status, Ground improvements, property ownership .......
Things do need to grow, including the wage budget, but it has to be done sustainably. How much ‘rainy day money’ do you think there is left?
Maybe a key player gets a long term injury, and Wilder, rightly, demands a big cash injection for a replacement ....oh wait......

I'm talking about running a profitable club, you are talking about cash with your 'rainy day money' comment.

In theory, if we are running at a decent profit (and there's no way we shouldn't be given our income as a PL club and costs that are still catching up to PL level) then the cash situation should be healthy. If it's not then there are various ways to fund short term working capital requirements.

Granted the cash inflows to the club will be spiky as the PL pays money in big chunks by all accounts. So at the start of the season we'll get £Xm, we'll then spend some of this before the next payment comes and so on, hopefully we don't spend more than £Xm before the next payment comes in, but it's not the end of the world if we do as we can finance it.

The property ownership was funded by a loan and therefore there will be capital repayments and finance costs associated with this loan. Training ground improvements are happening and are a cash flow issue (i.e. how are we funding them) as the actual improvements will only show in the P&L as depreciation.

The upshot again is, we can afford to take on a bit more cost as long as we remain a PL club, if we don't remain a PL club we are screwed anyway so we need to be spending a bit more to stay there. I am not advocating a Villa type scenario as they must be spending far in excess of what they have coming in.

 

[The Bear]

The delay in getting a striker signing over the line may well be a frustration for our fans, but, given the economic turmoil caused by Covid, the Board has to be measured in its use of our limited resources. I know many who have cancelled Sky Sports, disillusioned by football in empty stadia, and wonder whet, 0-1her that income stream will come under further pressure. The sad reality of high unemployment will also impact football's finances, particularly now that the prospect of crowds retuning anytime soon has evaporated. And yet players still expect huge wages, transfer fees and agents' costs remain crazily high. There appears to have been no recalibration of football's economy at the top level. We don't want our clubs long term future to be jeopardised by overspending at this challenging time.

Very true, but when your side lose 6 league games and score one goal in all that lot something is wrong. Perhaps we have bought too many defenders this window when the problem is elsewhere. Appears we have the 'perfect storm' of no fans in the grounds thus no gate money, little money anyway as we have risen through the leagues, diminished earnings from tv rights. Doubt if the Board had this as their business model.

At the moment we are not getting thumped, just fine margins 0-1 could be 0-0 or 1-1 but it hasn't turned out that way and it needs to be addressed or else four years of hard work could be going down the pan.

I am sure CW knows this and I dont think that many fans are even considering he's the wrong guy now as implied on one website but he has two weaknesses: slow, too slow starters and too few goals. Address those and its hunky dory.

 

[Charlieblade]

I'm talking about running a profitable club, you are talking about cash with your 'rainy day money' comment.

In theory, if we are running at a decent profit (and there's no way we shouldn't be given our income as a PL club and costs that are still catching up to PL level) then the cash situation should be healthy. If it's not then there are various ways to fund short term working capital requirements.

Granted the cash inflows to the club will be spiky as the PL pays money in big chunks by all accounts. So at the start of the season we'll get £Xm, we'll then spend some of this before the next payment comes and so on, hopefully we don't spend more than £Xm before the next payment comes in, but it's not the end of the world if we do as we can finance it.

The property ownership was funded by a loan and therefore there will be capital repayments and finance costs associated with this loan. Training ground improvements are happening and are a cash flow issue (i.e. how are we funding them) as the actual improvements will only show in the P&L as depreciation.

The upshot again is, we can afford to take on a bit more cost as long as we remain a PL club, if we don't remain a PL club we are screwed anyway so we need to be spending a bit more to stay there. I am not advocating a Villa type scenario as they must be spending far in excess of what they have coming in.

The answer is, we don’t really know. Until the accounts are published. Any loan is still a liability that has to be repaid, like the millions borrowed last autumn from McQuarrie Australian bank.
So much is made of income from the PL, but spending continues on all our resources, and still no other income, apart from a suspect sponsor, who is not getting the anticipated tv coverage?
As a business model coping with shortfalls, our expenditure, and or fans expectations are worryingly high.
I understand the implications of relegation for our financial future, but I’m confident this squad will still finish top ten.
Borrowing against future income is a worry, when you consider that foreign tv income was removed from the equation against expectation.
Overall, I believe we have spent sensibly, but our achievements last year have just created greater expectations from our supporters.
The squad may be light in places, but it is bigger and stronger than last year.

At least we are not selling players to fund losses ..... yet!

 

[Houston_Blade]

I understand the implications of relegation for our financial future, but I’m confident this squad will still finish top ten.

Borrowing against future income is a worry, when you consider that foreign tv income was removed from the equation against expectation.

At least we are not selling players to fund losses ..... yet!

I really can't see us being top 10 this season, that's just blind optimism if you think we will.

Borrowing against future income is not an issue, without it we wouldn't have been able to sign a few players last year. The Prince won't put his money in so we needed to borrow from somewhere to own the assets.

We aren't making losses so don't need to fund them.

 

[Tom Bott]

Plus we may need to chip in to bail out all the clubs in the lower leagues.

 

[Charlieblade]

I really can't see us being top 10 this season, that's just blind optimism if you think we will.

Borrowing against future income is not an issue, without it we wouldn't have been able to sign a few players last year. The Prince won't put his money in so we needed to borrow from somewhere to own the assets.

We aren't making losses so don't need to fund them.

A fine pair. I’m optimistic about the football side and you are optimistic about our income lol

 

[Houston_Blade]

A fine pair. I’m optimistic about the football side and you are optimistic about our income lol

Mine's based on the guarantee of money we'll receive, covid or not. Yours is a bit more speculative.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

It's great to want a Hasselblad, but the future projections show you can only afford a Vivicam.

Nah...me neither