General Zod Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 So a genuine question from a very confused me. We are constantly told by the powers to be that we are a small club compared to others in the Championship and are trying to compete with the big spenders. Is that true or do these figures show that we do spend, on a level if not with the best of them, certainly with a lot of them . Does this raise a question as the way we spend our money and decisions being made on transfers and wages? Are we under performing/achieving or where we should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturny Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, General Zod said: So a genuine question from a very confused me. We are constantly told by the powers to be that we are a small club compared to others in the Championship and are trying to compete with the big spenders. Is that true or do these figures show that we do spend, on a level if not with the best of them, certainly with a lot of them . Does this raise a question as the way we spend our money and decisions being made on transfers and wages? Are we under performing/achieving or where we should be? Strictly comparing ourselves to others? We are performing as we should be. Interesting that teams like Birmingham spend DOUBLE what we are on wages. I think it's slightly misleading though, Leeds spend slightly less than us but probably have a smaller squad and pay higher wages to the average player whilst our squad is potentially larger with a lower wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 Leeds with the highest commercial income in the division as of 16/17 can afford this sort of thing. Smaller squad? Unsure there's a great difference- we along with other similar clubs do likely need to pay over the odds to attract better players though- Sunderland had similar problems I read a while back. Took a quick look at both squads for 2016/17 and very similar size- maybe we had one or two players more in the season but not much in it! Wolves is more interesting- but there is also the simple possibility that English wages even at this level are well out of kilter and that players they got from Benfica, Monaco, Atletico- may well have been B team or similar- just cost less than we would think. Probably be a bit of both. @Red-Robbo that is from 16/17 so is our wage bill in that comparison. Similar squad size, similar wages- still think we pay over the odds somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Sturny said: Strictly comparing ourselves to others? We are performing as we should be. Interesting that teams like Birmingham spend DOUBLE what we are on wages. I think it's slightly misleading though, Leeds spend slightly less than us but probably have a smaller squad and pay higher wages to the average player whilst our squad is potentially larger with a lower wage. Not according to Wikipedia. Leeds have 40 adult players signed, compared to our 35. We have more out on loan as well. The fact is I find that pay chart not entirely believable. And even if it reflects filed club accounts, it's worth noting that during much of the time it covers Leeds were owned by a crook, as I mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturny Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 21 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said: Not according to Wikipedia. Leeds have 40 adult players signed, compared to our 35. We have more out on loan as well. The fact is I find that pay chart not entirely believable. And even if it reflects filed club accounts, it's worth noting that during much of the time it covers Leeds were owned by a crook, as I mentioned above. https://www.leedsunited.com/teams/first-team https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/ when you compare first team squad players there is only actually 1 player different, so I guess yeah we're not all that different. I don't believe counting all adult players is very relevant, some of our/their 18-21 year olds could easily be on less than 1k a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sturny said: https://www.leedsunited.com/teams/first-team https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/ when you compare first team squad players there is only actually 1 player different, so I guess yeah we're not all that different. I don't believe counting all adult players is very relevant, some of our/their 18-21 year olds could easily be on less than 1k a week. Even more reason why we are unlikely to be paying more wages than them. Of course, maybe we are paying those pesky "suits" more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturny Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Leeds with the highest commercial income in the division as of 16/17 can afford this sort of thing. Smaller squad? Unsure there's a great difference- we along with other similar clubs do likely need to pay over the odds to attract better players though- Sunderland had similar problems I read a while back. Took a quick look at both squads for 2016/17 and very similar size- maybe we had one or two players more in the season but not much in it! Wolves is more interesting- but there is also the simple possibility that English wages even at this level are well out of kilter and that players they got from Benfica, Monaco, Atletico- may well have been B team or similar- just cost less than we would think. Probably be a bit of both. @Red-Robbo that is from 16/17 so is our wage bill in that comparison. Similar squad size, similar wages- still think we pay over the odds somewhat. That's all it takes, imagine if we dumped Hegeler/Paterson's wage onto one player. that could be near 20-30k combined (I'm guessing ofc) thats the similar wage for a key player in the championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_eastender Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 8 hours ago, hoxton casual said: Wow - wage bill up £5m!. How much is it now £20m a year? That used to be big bucks, but I wonder how it compares to other clubs? Wonder how much of that £5m was the daft decision to offer Pato a new 3 year contract... plus the big wages we played to the likes of Kent & Diony on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1bristolcity Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 6 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: ALL THE HITS! You naughty boy!! Funny though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curr Avon Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 8 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: They are on the global list, they are that big. They're definitely on a different planet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 44 minutes ago, old_eastender said: Wonder how much of that £5m was the daft decision to offer Pato a new 3 year contract... plus the big wages we played to the likes of Kent & Diony on loan. Obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerseybean Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 Interesting thread, I’m astonished that our wage bill is double that of Sheffield United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 6 hours ago, Major Isewater said: I'm not sure that is a widely held view is it ? I think the majority realise that we can't just ignore ffp and that SL wants the club to be sustainable on it's own without the need for him to chuck in twenty million every year . Wait until the January transfer window Major and you'll see a fair share of Lansdown should splash the cash posts. They may be a vocal minority but they do wilfully ignore FFP because it doesn't suit their preconceptions. Or possibly because they simply don't understand it. Mind you there seem to be plenty of club owners and managers in the same boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said: Last bloke at Leeds had a bit of history with tax evasion and dodgy links. As for Wolves, see this about their owner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Guangchang Not to mention their friendly neighbourhood 'super agent'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 29 minutes ago, Jerseybean said: Interesting thread, I’m astonished that our wage bill is double that of Sheffield United. On the other hand, there look to be 14 Championship clubs paying more than us. And of course we don’t know how much of the wages figure quoted relates to players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsi2 Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 How much in trouble must reading and Blackburn be? Higher wages and surely lower income than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 5 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: ^ double accounting! Things were twice as bad as Villa fans thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Sturny said: That's all it takes, imagine if we dumped Hegeler/Paterson's wage onto one player. that could be near 20-30k combined (I'm guessing ofc) thats the similar wage for a key player in the championship. Yeah suppose so- when contracts expire we'll have some more wriggle room. @Jerseybean Lot of those figures are 2016/17. Indeed that is our Bristol City Holdings 2016/17 total figure including pensions and that. What came out today was our Bristol City FC Accounts- Holdings will offer a full picture. Sheffield United? That would be their 2016/17 League One figures. @Redsi2 Depends what you mean by trouble- traditional type financial trouble or FFP? In Reading's case, 16/17 was last year of their Parachute payments. Thereafter, they'll have problems. Blackburn made big sales in 16/17, so that keps the show on the road a bit longer. In standard financial terms, they both have rich owners but you never know how reliable those sources of funding can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Oil Services Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Jerseybean said: Interesting thread, I’m astonished that our wage bill is double that of Sheffield United. As Mr. Pop says, these are for 16/17, when they were still L1. I think they are doing rather well though, assuming their wages are still a fraction of the parachute mob, and probably quite similar to ours. Can they stay the pace this season, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted November 1, 2018 Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 6 hours ago, Sturny said: https://www.leedsunited.com/teams/first-team https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/ when you compare first team squad players there is only actually 1 player different, so I guess yeah we're not all that different. I don't believe counting all adult players is very relevant, some of our/their 18-21 year olds could easily be on less than 1k a week. Leeds gave 29 players a squad number at the start of this season, we dished out 26 squad numbers - their squad isn’t smaller than ours...which is an assumption you’ve mentioned several times in this thread....we pay higher wages than Leeds...according to the table that was posted on here...so we can compete with them despite many people citing them as the kind of club in this div with which we can’t compete in the transfer market etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderingred Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 So according to that graphic, we are just about where we should be in the pecking order. Not that player wages are the be all and end all of measuring football success but it gives a rough idea of which teams are over/underachieving based on their investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 17 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: All explained. From the Post. Revealed on Wednesday, October 31, the Bristol City’s losses have ballooned from £3.5m last year to an eye-watering £23.5m for the financial year ending in May 2018. That notable increase is a result of lower profits from platers sales and a higher wage bill. I know I didn't spend anything on platers during that period of time, and I think some of you need to have a word with yourself if you too think back and realise that you too didn't buy any platers either. I've decided that it would be more practical to copy out the actual bits that they get right. I don't believe that there is one single article on their site that doesn't contain typos, inaccuracies or incomprehensible constructions. This is the image I see in my mind when I go onto their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturny Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 8 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said: Leeds gave 29 players a squad number at the start of this season, we dished out 26 squad numbers - their squad isn’t smaller than ours...which is an assumption you’ve mentioned several times in this thread....we pay higher wages than Leeds...according to the table that was posted on here...so we can compete with them despite many people citing them as the kind of club in this div with which we can’t compete in the transfer market etc.... You’re over simplifying it. Let’s just ignore transfer fees and bonuses. I’m gonna go by squad numbers on their website thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, Sturny said: You’re over simplifying it. Let’s just ignore transfer fees and bonuses. I’m gonna go by squad numbers on their website thanks. I went by the squad numbers on their website as well....Leeds gave 29 players a squad number at the start of this season...they’ve got a bigger squad than us... https://www.leedsunited.com/news/team-news/23576/2018-19-squad-numbers-announced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturny Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 17 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said: I went by the squad numbers on their website as well....Leeds gave 29 players a squad number at the start of this season...they’ve got a bigger squad than us... https://www.leedsunited.com/news/team-news/23576/2018-19-squad-numbers-announced Fair. But I still think Leeds can offer more to a player especially in transfer fee/bonuses. Bamford is most likely on 30k+ Actually double checking those squad numbers are out dated. For example on ours joe Bryan is still there... if you go by their first team/profile (which seems more accurate for our count too) you’ll see there is 1 player difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sturny said: Fair. But I still think Leeds can offer more to a player especially in transfer fee/bonuses. Bamford is most likely on 30k+ By transfer fee/bonuses - do you mean and include signing on fees in that? It is possible that relatively small salaries could be topped up by big signing on fees, often spread over the length of a player’s contract - didn’t we do that with Tomlin to persuade him to join us and to allow us to pay him what he wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyderInACan Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 19 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: At least the situation is being managed Reg, would rather a FFS than waking up to a WTF when people haven't realised what the state of affairs is... It would be like someone suggesting a football stadium gets sold for housing and using the money from the sale to fund a new stadium... forgetting that there is already a charge on it. Or believing that because they played an away game at Chelsea that made them a few quid, that money is just sitting there doing nothing, and wasn't just part of their annual turnover and reduced the loss slightly.... I quite agree. It’s more FFS at the people who constantly moan about us not buying Messi every transfer window Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturny Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said: By transfer fee/bonuses - do you mean and include signing on fees in that? It is possible that relatively small salaries could be topped up by big signing on fees, often spread over the length of a player’s contract - didn’t we do that with Tomlin to persuade him to join us and to allow us to pay him what he wanted? There's a signing on fee that's included. They've signed Bamford for 7mil and pay him 30k a week, one window they spent 25m. Do you reckon we could've competed for Bamford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 For what it's worth, our BCFC Holdings Accounts out today- pretty busy this morning so a couple of brief headline figures. Turnover- £25,975,432 Wages- that'd be the total figure including directors, players and non players alike, pensions, social security etc- £27,274,691 Headline loss- £25,164,281 As I thought then- roughly. Revenue higher with BCFC Holdings- but losses also higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted November 2, 2018 Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, Sturny said: There's a signing on fee that's included. They've signed Bamford for 7mil and pay him 30k a week, one window they spent 25m. Do you reckon we could've competed for Bamford? Dunno, I just pointed out that Leeds pay less in salaries than we do in total and they have a bigger squad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.