chinapig Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Interesting from todays' Guardian, half way down: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/0...ian-cup-charity Seems they had a wages to turnover ratio of 114%! With their benefactor's business now in administration what would have happened to them had they lost the play off final? With more and more clubs threatened with administration themselves it surprises me that clubs still take such big risks with their future. I fear for Burnley if they come back down and don't return before the parachute payments run out. West Brom seem to take a much more sensible line but doubtless many will disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Interesting from todays' Guardian, half way down: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/0...ian-cup-charity Seems they had a wages to turnover ratio of 114%! With their benefactor's business now in administration what would have happened to them had they lost the play off final? With more and more clubs threatened with administration themselves it surprises me that clubs still take such big risks with their future. I fear for Burnley if they come back down and don't return before the parachute payments run out. West Brom seem to take a much more sensible line but doubtless many will disagree. 114% - blimey, that is some kind of gamble! No doubt West Brom play it the best way, but I'm not sure what good being a yo yo team will do for them in the long run. All you read about earlier this season was the fans wanting the chairman (Peace?) and Mowbray out. Come this time next year it's quite possible they'll be gods. Once you're in the Prem and got £60m to play with, surely you need to gamble some of that on staying there? Better to be a bottom 8 club in the Prem year in, year out than being the richest club in the Championship every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Once you're in the Prem and got £60m to play with, surely you need to gamble some of that on staying there? Better to be a bottom 8 club in the Prem year in, year out than being the richest club in the Championship every year? At the start of the season the premier league give you £32m then there are add ons for tv games shown live and final position - the £60m makes assumptions i.e. £32m plus the bonuses just mentioned and then 2 years of parachute payments of £11m? Watford whose parachute payments finished last season or the season before had a wage bill of £17m for the season just finished. You have to budget really really well when promoted as a relegation and crap managers can lead you into huge financial problems. Hull and Stoke will now benefit from another £32m instead of the anticipated £11m that most would have expected. WBA can keep all of their players with no financial problems at all because they didnt spend like mad men (Roy Keane, Sunderland £40m transfer fees all spring to mind) - had Hull come down would they have been able to keep hold of Jimmy Bullock and the £3m a year for 4 seasons deal they gave him (£5m transfer fee for the privilege)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 At the start of the season the premier league give you £32m then there are add ons for tv games shown live and final position - the £60m makes assumptions i.e. £32m plus the bonuses just mentioned and then 2 years of parachute payments of £11m? Watford whose parachute payments finished last season or the season before had a wage bill of £17m for the season just finished. You have to budget really really well when promoted as a relegation and crap managers can lead you into huge financial problems. Hull and Stoke will now benefit from another £32m instead of the anticipated £11m that most would have expected. WBA can keep all of their players with no financial problems at all because they didnt spend like mad men (Roy Keane, Sunderland £40m transfer fees all spring to mind) - had Hull come down would they have been able to keep hold of Jimmy Bullock and the £3m a year for 4 seasons deal they gave him (£5m transfer fee for the privilege)? Bullard you mean But I agree, you need to gamble to an extent, but West Brom have done it right and in my opinion were a touch unlucky to go down, I certainly think there were worse teams in the prem though the table disagrees with me!! GJ is quite careful in the transfer market, but tbh I don't expect a real push for promotion from City for a year or two yet, because the structure for a potential Premier League side isn't quite there yet, and SL and GJ know that. Once the stadiums been built by then we'll hopefully be an established top 10 Championship side and then we'll be ready for the prem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.