Why don't we have much money?

[Yogi]

Right apologies if I've missed a thread/discussion on this, but I'm perplexed that we seemingly don't have a pot to pi$$ in (if the rumours are correct). I appreciate that we still have to pay a £4 million instalment on Brewster and a couple of million for Anel, but why would that all of a sudden make us skint? We spent around £65 million the first season (and didn't lose money), plus the 8 million to upgrade the ground (again if the reports are true), so even if we deduct the 5 or 6 million we owe for the players mentioned, surely we should still have circa 55-60 million minimum to spend (I know wages will be included in this). I hope the board give Hecky a fighting chance of survival, or come out and explain the reasons we aren't (as in ground improvements etc). I guess we will shortly find out if we have money or not, I was just a little surprised at what Hecky said when he said there was a slight disagreement between him and the board about where we should be.

We have money but the market has jumped again so a top Championship player is now costing 20+ million. Mean we could probably only get one or two of the top championship players and not have much left to address the other needs we have.

 

[robbiez666]

Running a Championship club costs a lot. We're still paying for players like Brewster. I'm not convinced that spreading the cost of players is wise in the long run

 

[bigbirdblade]

I'm still of the opinion that in the not to distant future a big club prem or champ is going to go pop. Not necessarily us but a 'name'. Football can't carry on like this, it's just not sustainable.

 

[ForgeBlade]

I admit I'm a bit thick in this respect. What I don't understand is why, now we've gone up, with the enormous prem tv money and such, and guarantees of more parachute cash if/when we go back down, we're still apparently broke. I know the money in football isn't really "real" disposable cash, but surely we're not that far behind on payments for players that a minimum (per a brief google search) of £135 MILLION doesn't fill the hole? If we are, then serious questions have to be asked not just by us, but by a whole raft of other clubs of similar status.

 

[Mojo]

If we can sign Anel when we are in the championship, you would hope we could get a few more like him now we have gone up.

Plenty of quality for reasonable prices if you know where to look. The championship is not really the place for a bargain any more

 

[Westran]

I'm still of the opinion that in the not to distant future a big club prem or champ is going to go pop. Not necessarily us but a 'name'. Football can't carry on like this, it's just not sustainable.

Hopefully the pigs

 

[Westran]

I admit I'm a bit thick in this respect. What I don't understand is why, now we've gone up, with the enormous prem tv money and such, and guarantees of more parachute cash if/when we go back down, we're still apparently broke. I know the money in football isn't really "real" disposable cash, but surely we're not that far behind on payments for players that a minimum (per a brief google search) of £135 MILLION doesn't fill the hole? If we are, then serious questions have to be asked not just by us, but by a whole raft of other clubs of similar status.

It's not that we don't have money, it's that the money we have (or rather will get) will be needed to cover increased wages etc. The club takes money to run, we will buy players, the players we have will be on better wages and have promotion bonuses to be paid. We probably do have a spare £20m or so, but to spend that on players would blow our safety net and put us back at square one, the Prince isn't willing to take that risk seen as he's had to subsidise us for so long.

 

[Harrisblade]

Running a Championship club costs a lot. We're still paying for players like Brewster. I'm not convinced that spreading the cost of players is wise in the long run

Probably is if you think you may need more than one player in a transfer window.
Could anyone afford to buy a house if there weren't mortgages?

 

[bakeblade]

Running a Championship club costs a lot. We're still paying for players like Brewster. I'm not convinced that spreading the cost of players is wise in the long run

It all comes down to the ridiculous wages we and other clubs are paying to average players.
Until this problem is addressed, just about every football club will continue to struggle financially.

 

[robbiez666]

It all comes down to the ridiculous wages we and other clubs are paying to average players.
Until this problem is addressed, just about every football club will continue to struggle financially.

This is the issue with modern football. In the old days, clubs were 'big clubs' because their attendances allowed them to buy better players. Now, attendances are fairly meaningless in the top leagues. They go nowhere near covering wages. This is where football has gone wrong.

 

[robbiez666]

Probably is if you think you may need more than one player in a transfer window.
Could anyone afford to buy a house if there weren't mortgages?

But if I had the amount of money needed to buy 5 houses in my bank account, surely it would be a better idea to pay for them then and there than spread the payments to a time when I know I won't have anywhere near enough income?

I'd rather we didn't spread payments when we're in the top flight, because relegation would be less of an issue (the parachute payment would cover the extra wages and running costs).

 

[Davalon]

Sheffield innit.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

It's almost like the price of everything related to football has become too inflated or something, over the past 20 years.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

"Did Wilder get fired or resign?"
"Why can't we play a different formation?"
"Is Norwood good?"
"Is McBurnie any good?"
"Why don't we sell Egan?"
"Why is Berge"

And other classics

Other favourites include:
"Why does Lundstram?"
"What is a Robin Olsen?"

 

[Bell4]

The best bloke to answer this question is probably slagging someone off or bragging somewhere, before he takes his League 1 job.

you mean the guy who earned it in the first place and enabled an infrastructure to get back up -- that guy

 

[Ned the Donkey]

I admit I'm a bit thick in this respect. What I don't understand is why, now we've gone up, with the enormous prem tv money and such, and guarantees of more parachute cash if/when we go back down, we're still apparently broke. I know the money in football isn't really "real" disposable cash, but surely we're not that far behind on payments for players that a minimum (per a brief google search) of £135 MILLION doesn't fill the hole? If we are, then serious questions have to be asked not just by us, but by a whole raft of other clubs of similar status.

It's all in the Pinch's article that others have posted links to. That said, I've read that article twice, it seems to make sense, and I think I get the gist of it, but a summary would be useful. I think it's mainly players wages.

Eg for the sake of simple but obviously unrealistic numbers:

High level Championship players challenging for promotion are on £500/week.
Income is £450/week so a club makes a loss.
When you get to the Premier League income doubles (yay!) to £900/week - that should cover it...
...but wages treble (oh dear) to £1500/week.

So your income doubles but your out goings treble and you're much worse off.

That might be completely wrong, but it's the best I could get from the article.

 

[Bell4]

It's all in the Pinch's article that others have posted links to. That said, I've read that article twice, it seems to make sense, and I think I get the gist of it, but a summary would be useful. I think it's mainly players wages.

Eg for the sake of simple but obviously unrealistic numbers:

High level Championship players challenging for promotion are on £500/week.
Income is £450/week so a club makes a loss.
When you get to the Premier League income doubles (yay!) to £900/week - that should cover it...
...but wages treble (oh dear) to £1500/week.

So your income doubles but your out goings treble and you're much worse off.

That might be completely wrong, but it's the best I could get from the article.

Makes you wonder if its worth going up

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

you mean the guy who earned it in the first place and enabled an infrastructure to get back up -- that guy

No, you're on about Prince Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud, I'm on about Chris Wilder you dafty.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Makes you wonder if its worth going up

I have come to that conclusion myself, independently.

As Biggie Smalls once said.................

 

[Sheffsteel]

Running the club
Player bonuses for promotion
Players wages in the PL
Big squad
Wilder wasted loads on poor signings and wages
Premier league ground upgrade
Police costs
Flying to away games
Academy costs
Wilder pay off
Slav pay off
Agent fees
Brewster, Mc Burnie, Berge, Mouset, Bogle/Lowe plus other lower value signings and loan signings
Loss in the championship

Some of that relates to last season so isn't relevant.

My understand is that at the start of every season we set an income and expenditure budget.
So unless there are some weird surprises, like covid, then everything should balance with no financial troubles.
Basically everything (the drop in parachute payments) has already been budgeted for in the staff contracts.

However my understanding from talking to someone at the club is that some of our income has been used to support "United World".
It's United World that is proving far more expensive than the Prince ever imagined and he needs funds from somewhere to keep it going.
So he's used some of our turnover. Haven't a clue if this is correct but it's what I was recently told.
Was also told we are in financial trouble and need to takeover (any takeover) to go through.

 

[Isar]

This is the issue with modern football. In the old days, clubs were 'big clubs' because their attendances allowed them to buy better players. Now, attendances are fairly meaningless in the top leagues. They go nowhere near covering wages. This is where football has gone wrong.

Don't tell Wednesday fans that attendances are meaningless

 

[Astraboy]

Money doesn't buy success, it helps but no guarantees!

 

[Sheffsteel]

It all comes down to the ridiculous wages we and other clubs are paying to average players.
Until this problem is addressed, just about every football club will continue to struggle financially.

So the answer is don't show any ambition and refuse to meet wage demands of our targets.
Imagine the bedlam on here if we didn't buy McBurnie, Brewster and Berge due to not meeting wage demands.

We were still one of the lowest payers the last time we were in the PL and generally paid £25K a week.
I've been told from a trusted source that every single player have wage decreases built into their contract if we were relegated.
Also told that for the past year or 2 we've still been able to afford to pay the wages of all our players.

 

[robbiez666]

It's United World that is proving far more expensive than the Prince ever imagined and he needs funds from somewhere to keep it going.
So he's used some of our turnover

beats his defender and squares the ball to Sean Thornton . It's an open goal, he surely must score!

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

So the answer is don't show any ambition and refuse to meet wage demands of our targets.
Imagine the bedlam on here if we didn't buy McBurnie, Brewster and Berge due to not meeting wage demands.

We were still one of the lowest payers the last time we were in the PL and generally paid £25K a week.
I've been told from a trusted source that every single player have wage decreases built into their contract if we were relegated.
Also told that for the past year or 2 we've still been able to afford to pay the wages of all our players.

£25k might have been the average across the squad, but there were at least 2 players on double that, and a couple on £40k. I'm am under the impression that CW topped the wage bill.

Yes we currently pay our wages, but we lose £25m a season doing it & we have to squeeze the pips out of every £1, every payment window & every element of supplier good will. That's why the Prince wants out.

 

[Laney Blade]

Right apologies if I've missed a thread/discussion on this, but I'm perplexed that we seemingly don't have a pot to pi$$ in (if the rumours are correct). I appreciate that we still have to pay a £4 million instalment on Brewster and a couple of million for Anel, but why would that all of a sudden make us skint? We spent around £65 million the first season (and didn't lose money), plus the 8 million to upgrade the ground (again if the reports are true), so even if we deduct the 5 or 6 million we owe for the players mentioned, surely we should still have circa 55-60 million minimum to spend (I know wages will be included in this). I hope the board give Hecky a fighting chance of survival, or come out and explain the reasons we aren't (as in ground improvements etc). I guess we will shortly find out if we have money or not, I was just a little surprised at what Hecky said when he said there was a slight disagreement between him and the board about where we should be.

The accounts published last June showed debts totalling £115 MILL. The owner has around 9 secured loans outstanding & the mortgage he took out to pay the £35 MILL for the stadium, club & all other properties. The loans were secured against Prem money for both seasons & all the parachute payments. You have to remember the owner won't spend a penny of his own money. He never promised to do this. He's also bought 4 other foreign clubs since the last promotion under Chris Wilder. They all cost money to run & we are the only club he owns , of the 5 under the umbrella of United World, who has been bringing in massive amounts of money for United World. So it's easy to see where the money has gone.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

No, you're on about Prince Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud, I'm on about Chris Wilder you dafty.

What again?

 

[JJBlade]

Don't tell Wednesday fans that attendances are meaningless

Yes, don't do that for God's sake

There only semblance of comfort is that they get more fans that Forest Green or Accrington Stanley

It's completely lost on them that Man City get lower attendances than Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham and even West Ham

 

[ATL Recs]

It all comes down to the ridiculous wages we and other clubs are paying to average players.
Until this problem is addressed, just about every football club will continue to struggle financially.

Agents !!!

 

[Frank the tank]

It's not that we don't have money, it's that the money we have (or rather will get) will be needed to cover increased wages etc. The club takes money to run, we will buy players, the players we have will be on better wages and have promotion bonuses to be paid. We probably do have a spare £20m or so, but to spend that on players would blow our safety net and put us back at square one, the Prince isn't willing to take that risk seen as he's had to subsidise us for so long.

Our last two premiership wage bills were 77 m ( including promotion bonuses )and 55 million the following season

Roughly half of the income for next season