City Spending 149% of Turnover on Staff

[Touch_my_butter]

...and there's a 100m revenue-gap between EFL and PL:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40717176

[Fiale]

[Bristol Rob]

Do Fulham work for nothing?

[slartibartfast]

Sorry, I'm a sag and thick....is that good or bad ?  

[cheshire_red]

That was before all of the stadium was complete and much of the matchday revenue streams were not in place though surely?

[cheshire_red]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

Do Fulham work for nothing?

I presume it means they spend less than 100% of their turnover on staff

[Mr Popodopolous]

Assuming it's from 15-16?

Originally had concerns about FFP but now quite relaxed about it.

[View from the Dolman]

Yep, those are the numbers from the 15/16 accounts.

[Scrumpylegs]

That figure is 15/16. Our average attendance then was 4.5k less than last season and bars/corporate facilities were a shadow of what they are now. Will be well down that list next season.

[havanatopia]

1 minute ago, Scrumpylegs said:

That figure is 15/16. Our average attendance then was 4.5k less than last season and bars/corporate facilities were a shadow of what they are now. Will be well down that list next season.

I am surprised Forest are so high. Shows a sense of utter mismagement considering the facilities I believe they have and the attendances they garner.

[WarksRobin]

31 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

I am surprised Forest are so high. Shows a sense of utter mismagement considering the facilities I believe they have and the attendances they garner.

Didn't they go through a few managers around then? Could account for the high staff costs.

[Merrick's Marvels]

The same stats for the season just gone will be much more telling - all 4 stands in use, all hospitality outlets up and running, plenty of non-matchday events generating income.

(Hopefully not all gobbled up by Lee Tomlin's wages!)

 

[Lrrr]

40 minutes ago, Scrumpylegs said:

That figure is 15/16. Our average attendance then was 4.5k less than last season and bars/corporate facilities were a shadow of what they are now. Will be well down that list next season.

So an estimated 4500 extra per match at say what £25 (being very generous but mixed with having potentially smaller attendances) would be an extra £112,500 per match which means around another £2.6m per season just through ticket sales. 

[fairweather]

I used to run a conference on football and Finance chaired by Dan Jones at Ernst and Young. It was clear back then that football and finance were a nightmare from a business point of view but also nobody had a clue on actual revenues.

Brentford could be called a selling club. They have bought and sold brilliantly. Surely thats how they finance wages rather than all via match day revenue or they would they would not have the players they have with the size of ground they have. Is that revenue included in the calculation of turnover? It should be but it doesn't seem those compiling reports know the detail of transfers. Most of ours are undisclosed. 

Further, a club that buys 10 players and sells ten players would then have  massive turnover even if they made a loss on the 10 deals

 

 

[SARJ]

Speculate to accumulate.

Went to the Emirate Cup recently. The staff Arsenal have at their many bars inside the ground is unbelievable. But the quick and friendly service ensures you buy far more.

At half time there were so many staff we were able to get 2 pints each easy, plus snacks. At Ashton Gate you'd be queuing for like 10mins.

Similar story when I used to work at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. Loads of staff meant more beer was sold. Quick service, quick delivery. We had a team of 8 in my area who did nothing but pour pints all day!

[Kid in the Riot]

We've been at this level of wage versus turnover for many years now it feels. Every season expecting it to come down but it never seems to. With the size of squad and wages we're paying now I doubt it will come down much next year or even the year after... SL is obviously happy running the club like this and if it works then fine. Though ultimately not sure how it fits in with his stated aim of running the club sustainably. But then I've never been convinced he's interested in running the club to break even as then it would kinda defeat the object in having a wealthy billionaire owner !

[pongo88]

2 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Sorry, I'm a sag and thick....is that good or bad ?  

Bad. It means expenditure is greater than income. It's worse than it seems as the staff expenditure is 149% of turnover, which is the amount of money taken by City during the season. In addition to the staff costs there will be other expenditure which will increase the overall loss made by the club. To improve the situation City must reduce staff costs, increase turnover or a combination of both. This is happening - see Scrumpylegs:

2 hours ago, Scrumpylegs said:

That figure is 15/16. Our average attendance then was 4.5k less than last season and bars/corporate facilities were a shadow of what they are now. Will be well down that list next season.

 

[ashton_fan]

2 hours ago, hodge said:

So an estimated 4500 extra per match at say what £25 (being very generous but mixed with having potentially smaller attendances) would be an extra £112,500 per match which means around another £2.6m per season just through ticket sales. 

Steve L said the completed new stadium would mean £7-8M extra revenue. Also last season we had the Kodjia money.

[funky monkey]

3 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Do Fulham work for nothing?

the table starts at 100%

[Kodjias Wrist]

38 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

Steve L said the completed new stadium would mean £7-8M extra revenue. Also last season we had the Kodjia money.

Dont remember him saying that but thats a huge increase. Do the facilities at the gate get used much for events?

[slartibartfast]

2 hours ago, pongo88 said:

Bad. It means expenditure is greater than income. It's worse than it seems as the staff expenditure is 149% of turnover, which is the amount of money taken by City during the season. In addition to the staff costs there will be other expenditure which will increase the overall loss made by the club. To improve the situation City must reduce staff costs, increase turnover or a combination of both. This is happening - see Scrumpylegs:

 

Cheers ...so bad BUT getting better !

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

We've been at this level of wage versus turnover for many years now it feels. Every season expecting it to come down but it never seems to. With the size of squad and wages we're paying now I doubt it will come down much next year or even the year after... SL is obviously happy running the club like this and if it works then fine. Though ultimately not sure how it fits in with his stated aim of running the club sustainably. But then I've never been convinced he's interested in running the club to break even as then it would kinda defeat the object in having a wealthy billionaire owner !

Financial sustainability nowadays is enabling the club to run within the financial constraints imposed by the football league.

Apologies if Im teaching Granny to suck eggs KITR, but the amount Steve can put into the club is limited ( I think) by the amount of our losses. He is however allowed to invest whatever he wants ( again I think this is the case) in both the academy and the stadium. The academy is hoped to bring on our young players who, if they get into the first team will save on transfer fees or generate bigger profits if they are eventually sold on . The stadium gives us more match day revenue streams ( weren't we the only championship club without corporate boxes before the refurb?) and crucially increases non match day revenue by increased use of stadium facilities for corporate events.

Both of these are exactly the object of having a wealthy owner.

The increased revenues from the stadium, allied to increased attendances, will make all the difference in terms of the club's financially sustainability and will give Sl more scope to us his wealth for bringing in more and better players, rather than just shoring up the annual losses, which was always the case previously, and I am sure SL was not happy about running the club this way as Im sure he would prefer to use his money more productively than "covering the losses".

Also, we all know the problems of trying to compete on a shoe string i.e. paying "affordable" wages. If we are to compete then our wages will reflect that and it becomes very hard to reduce the outgoing in terms of wages. If so then the only factor we can affect is income, and that is just what the cub has been doing.

The much criticised and often ridiculed  5 pillars were in fact a recognition of the fact that the club could not continue running the way it had and crucially, could not do so under the financial constraints imposed by ffp or whatever variant we have in the championship. SL was ahead of the game in seeing this and using his wealth, in the stadium in particular, to benefit the club long term, not at the expense of his own contribution but to make better use of his financial contribution to benefit the club where it most counts - out on the pitch. 

The financial impact won't be immediate, although it will be interesting to see the figures for the first full season after the stadium fully opened, but in the long term I am certain it will make a significant difference.

He might have his critics for a lot of decisions, but I think on the one SL has got it about right.

 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Financial sustainability nowadays is enabling the club to run within the financial constraints imposed by the football league.

Apologies if Im teaching Granny to suck eggs KITR, but the amount Steve can put into the club is limited ( I think) by the amount of our losses. He is however allowed to invest whatever he wants ( again I think this is the case) in both the academy and the stadium. The academy is hoped to bring on our young players who, if they get into the first team will save on transfer fees or generate bigger profits if they are eventually sold on . The stadium gives us more match day revenue streams ( weren't we the only championship club without corporate boxes before the refurb?) and crucially increases non match day revenue by increased use of stadium facilities for corporate events.

Both of these are exactly the object of having a wealthy owner.

The increased revenues from the stadium, allied to increased attendances, will make all the difference in terms of the club's financially sustainability and will give Sl more scope to us his wealth for bringing in more and better players, rather than just shoring up the annual losses, which was always the case previously, and I am sure SL was not happy about running the club this way as Im sure he would prefer to use his money more productively than "covering the losses".

Also, we all know the problems of trying to compete on a shoe string i.e. paying "affordable" wages. If we are to compete then our wages will reflect that and it becomes very hard to reduce the outgoing in terms of wages. If so then the only factor we can affect is income, and that is just what the cub has been doing.

The much criticised and often ridiculed  5 pillars were in fact a recognition of the fact that the club could not continue running the way it had and crucially, could not do so under the financial constraints imposed by ffp or whatever variant we have in the championship. SL was ahead of the game in seeing this and using his wealth, in the stadium in particular, to benefit the club long term, not at the expense of his own contribution but to make better use of his financial contribution to benefit the club where it most counts - out on the pitch. 

The financial impact won't be immediate, although it will be interesting to see the figures for the first full season after the stadium fully opened, but in the long term I am certain it will make a significant difference.

He might have his critics for a lot of decisions, but I think on the one SL has got it about right.

Some fair points and his investment in the infrastructure side of things is most welcome.  I think the loss limit is £7m last time I checked to his investment on the playing side is 'capped' in that respect. 

I wouldn't agree that SL has been 'ahead of the game' in terms of stadium/training ground investment. On the contrary he's been at the helm for 15 years and those things have only just been delivered where other clubs have long secured new facilities and passed us to the Premier League. Still, glad it's finally arrived and here's hoping we reap the benefits shortly!

[downendcity]

27 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Some fair points and his investment in the infrastructure side of things is most welcome.  I think the loss limit is £7m last time I checked to his investment on the playing side is 'capped' in that respect. 

I wouldn't agree that SL has been 'ahead of the game' in terms of stadium/training ground investment. On the contrary he's been at the helm for 15 years and those things have only just been delivered where other clubs have long secured new facilities and passed us to the Premier League. Still, glad it's finally arrived and here's hoping we reap the benefits shortly!

I don't think it's for the want of trying.

SL's first choice was to build a brand new stadium and llans go build a new stadium at AV were first mooted in ( I then) 2007/2008, so only 5 years into his ownership. At that time Sl was nothing like as wealthy as now, so it needed a suitable buyer for AG to enable the new build plans to get the go ahead. As we all know this plans were ambushed, derailed and sidetracked by dog walkers and the like so they were eventually scrapped.

At this point SL's personal wealth had snowballed and he could consider the AG  rebuild himself.

Had AV received the go ahead who knows where we might be - quite possibly the biggest half empty ground in league 1?

 

 

 

[Spoons]

So what I spend 149% of my turnover on thatchers gold !!

[Davefevs]

149% of my turnovers are apple.

[reddoh]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

Financial sustainability nowadays is enabling the club to run within the financial constraints imposed by the football league.

Apologies if Im teaching Granny to suck eggs KITR, but the amount Steve can put into the club is limited ( I think) by the amount of our losses. He is however allowed to invest whatever he wants ( again I think this is the case) in both the academy and the stadium. The academy is hoped to bring on our young players who, if they get into the first team will save on transfer fees or generate bigger profits if they are eventually sold on . The stadium gives us more match day revenue streams ( weren't we the only championship club without corporate boxes before the refurb?) and crucially increases non match day revenue by increased use of stadium facilities for corporate events.

Both of these are exactly the object of having a wealthy owner.

The increased revenues from the stadium, allied to increased attendances, will make all the difference in terms of the club's financially sustainability and will give Sl more scope to us his wealth for bringing in more and better players, rather than just shoring up the annual losses, which was always the case previously, and I am sure SL was not happy about running the club this way as Im sure he would prefer to use his money more productively than "covering the losses".

Also, we all know the problems of trying to compete on a shoe string i.e. paying "affordable" wages. If we are to compete then our wages will reflect that and it becomes very hard to reduce the outgoing in terms of wages. If so then the only factor we can affect is income, and that is just what the cub has been doing.

The much criticised and often ridiculed  5 pillars were in fact a recognition of the fact that the club could not continue running the way it had and crucially, could not do so under the financial constraints imposed by ffp or whatever variant we have in the championship. SL was ahead of the game in seeing this and using his wealth, in the stadium in particular, to benefit the club long term, not at the expense of his own contribution but to make better use of his financial contribution to benefit the club where it most counts - out on the pitch. 

The financial impact won't be immediate, although it will be interesting to see the figures for the first full season after the stadium fully opened, but in the long term I am certain it will make a significant difference.

He might have his critics for a lot of decisions, but I think on the one SL has got it about right.

 

 

Just in case some one doesn't know you put a hole in both ends and blow

[RUSSEL85]

1 hour ago, reddoh said:

Just in case some one doesn't know you put a hole in both ends and blow

@Rudolf Hucker 

[RedRaw]

6 hours ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

Dont remember him saying that but thats a huge increase. Do the facilities at the gate get used much for events?

Absolutely. The stadium is used in one form or another pretty much every day of the week. 

I know an ex-employee of the club and he previously told me that although the football and rugby bring in good incomes, the real big earner is the conferencing facilities. 

[North London Red]

9 hours ago, fairweather said:

I used to run a conference on football and Finance chaired by Dan Jones at Ernst and Young. It was clear back then that football and finance were a nightmare from a business point of view but also nobody had a clue on actual revenues.

Brentford could be called a selling club. They have bought and sold brilliantly. Surely thats how they finance wages rather than all via match day revenue or they would they would not have the players they have with the size of ground they have. Is that revenue included in the calculation of turnover? It should be but it doesn't seem those compiling reports know the detail of transfers. Most of ours are undisclosed. 

Further, a club that buys 10 players and sells ten players would then have  massive turnover even if they made a loss on the 10 deals

 

 

Amounts received from the sale of players are almost always NOT recognised as turnover for UK football clubs. Players' contracts are recognised on the balance sheet as intangible assets (at the amount paid when the player was bought) and are amortised over the life of the contract. When a player is sold, the difference between the amount received (or receivable) and the net book value at the point of sale is recognised within 'profit or loss on the sale of fixed assets / intangible assets', which is not part of the revenue line in company accounts. For the same reason, a team can buy a player for (say) £2 million on a four year contract, sell the player after three years for £1 million, and the correct accounting treatment would be to recognise a profit on the sale of £0.5 million.