Sorry to post something sensible on Owlstalk but ...

[Guest Steel]

Working on the turnover and wages figures I have been able to find online, I came up with the attached figures. Admittedly the figures are for 2011/2012 and the wages figure will include all staff not just players, but I don't think that will make a lot of difference. Some of you might find this interesting and I hope it goes some way to answering some questions you may have when making comparisons. Sorry if its a bit messy, but it won't let me uplaod an excel spreadsheet.Championship Turnover vs Wages.txt

Edited August 7, 2013 by Steel

[NorfolkNChance]

This topic deserves 20 odd pages not the made up guff about Billy Sharp

[Mr. Chow]

so why has milan stated we need 4-5 players then, its false hope.

[ash60s]

A refreshing change

I concur

[Last_Great_Hope]

so why has milan stated we need 4-5 players then, its false hope.

Needed 4-5 players. We have brought 3 in so we just need to get two more in to make 5.

Its not false hope if we are going to be moving some out before finalising our squad. Which is likely.

[NHOwl]

Working on the turnover and wages figures I have been able to find online, I came up with the attached figures. Admittedly the figures are for 2011/2012 and the wages figure will include all staff not just players, but I don't think that will make a lot of difference. Some of you might find this interesting and I hope it goes some way to answering some questions you may have when making comparisons. Sorry if its a bit messy, but it won't let me uplaod an excel spreadsheet.Championship Turnover vs Wages.txt

This is really interesting. To my mind the first thing it shows is what a stellar job Wednesday, Huddersfield and Charlton (particularly) did in even managing to stay up in their first season back given their relative lack of resources compared to most other teams in the division. Along with Barnsley - who should also be congratulated - these teams had the four lowest turnovers in the division (Watford have small crowds but their figure must be an error).

It also demonstrates very clearly just how ridiculously unfair the parachute system has become. QPR in particular, a team that cannot typically command anything close to Wednesday in terms of attendance figures has a revenue over 7x larger, consequently allowing them to spend over $54m in wages compared to Wednesday's $7.5m (although I guess the revenue and wages will have fallen last year). Very tough to compete though.

If you look at the clubs that appear to be doing the best to live within their means - meaning there are no premier league/parachute payment revenues in their turnover AND whose wage bill is less than 80% of turnover then you have to look at Leeds and Brighton as the best examples, as well as Derby, Wednesday and (almost) Barnsley as the teams that are doing their best to progress with what they have. The turnover for Leeds and particularly Brighton seem high given neither has been in the premier league so their figures may be skewed.

Given that Wednesday are still apparently losing $5m per year and appear on this evidence to be one of the clubs being run the most efficiently then it shows what an enormous problem some teams are going to have when their parachute payments cease and they have not made it back to the premier league.

Much as I would like to see Wednesday bring in that extra bit of quality and push on, I think these figures provide additional evidence of how well the club is actually being run right now and just how the progress that has been made has been done without pushing the club to the verge of bankruptcy.

[VictoryBell]

I'm thinking that the FFP business does seem to militate against clubs who actually invest heavily in academies and  other youth development programmes. I've always presumed they (development programmes) produce very little income themselves (i.e. £0.00p) whilst being a further wage outgoing, dragging the organisation towards the 60% limit. Maybe they just aren't that expensive compared to paying some  twinkle-toed nancy boy driving a Ferrari (does that sound a bit flat cap and woodbine?)

 

Or does the FFP rule apply only to playing staff wages in which case I have just wasted 5 minutes typing this b0ll0cks.

 

Also, have any clubs tried getting round the 60% of turnover problem by paying players in kind (shares, cocaine, Tesco vouchers)? Or giving them another (highly) paid job with a totally owned subsidiary company (e.g. photographic model for OwlsKits Ltd) whilst paying them peanuts for playing football.

 

Sounds transparently fraudulent, I know, but it's amazing what the b@stards in banking get away with, so why not football, which is equally as crooked?