MartockRed Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Watching Colins interview last night (free to view on player), I was a little surprised to hear him say that we had a far bigger budget than 3 teams who have recently achieved promotion. Blackpool is the obvious one. Swansea , I thought maybe we would be on a par with, but was surprised when he included Norwich. Sort of forgotten about it all until a few minutes ago when my Forest supporting brother in law emailed me this. http://www.skysports...7077102,00.html Surely not in the top 3 in the Championship, or even top 2 as Nick Doughty states? Or is he just going on financial losses for season, which at nearly £13 million I could half believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 we have one of the bigger budgets yea, it goes un-noticed because of all the undisclosed fees, Our players on avg are on 7 - 10k a week we have one of the bigger wage structures in this league and spent a fair bit on players since we've been promoted, So no it doesn't suprise me at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's the highly paid players signed by GJ and SC who are doing the damage to the wage budget. Once they are gone we may see a better return for our substantial investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Red Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 we have one of the bigger budgets yea, it goes un-noticed because of all the undisclosed fees, Our players on avg are on 7 - 10k a week we have one of the bigger wage structures in this league and spent a fair bit on players since we've been promoted, So no it doesn't suprise me at all No suprise to me either. We can more than compete finacially at this level contrary to the belief of many on here who seem to think we can compete with no one bar the Doncaster's of this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 No suprise to me either. We can more than compete finacially at this level contrary to the belief of many on here who seem to think we can compete with no one bar the Doncaster's of this world. Why, then, are we all so pessimistic about the forthcoming season? Is it because we spend a lot of money but get precious little in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 No suprise to me either. We can more than compete finacially at this level contrary to the belief of many on here who seem to think we can compete with no one bar the Doncaster's of this world. But this money is already being spent, that's the point... Until the deadwood on huge wages like; Hunt, Stewart, Johnson, Cissé, Clarkson and arguably a few others go we cannot spend any more. that's anything between £30k and £50k of our wage budget gone on players who aren't good enough to even be in the managers thoughts.. When they've buggered off we might see a little more room for investment in the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeRed Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Apparantly Steve Lansdown freaked out when he found out that Swansea had achieved promotion on a wage budget of a little over half of ours. He's realised that good management is required - not just throwing money around like GJ/SC did. CR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartockRed Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Apparantly Steve Lansdown freaked out when he found out that Swansea had achieved promotion on a wage budget of a little over half of ours. He's realised that good management is required - not just throwing money around like GJ/SC did. CR I thought we were probably top ten in terms of paying wages, but I'm also freaking out that we had a bigger budget then the likes of Cardiff, QPR, Forest and Burnley last season. Surely this budget includes all running costs, including the costs incurred for the development at Ashton Vale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 we've had to spend more money as we were establishing ourselfs as a championship club, now we are established we are more attractive to the better players but at the moment as some one said, we are carry at least 8 players we don't need, We handed out 5 year contracts to players who should of been handed 3 out of loyalty which is Lansdowns fault as he was the chairman at the time and was going on loyalty rather then his busieness head, Which is the reason he stepped down as chairman and is letting some one who isn't a fan (in terms of passion that we and Steve have) run the club and make the calls, We should no longer be handing out longer contracts with those rose tinted specs we have in the past, Just to make it clear I'm not being critical of lansdown as he's the best ever thing to happen to this club in my life time and I'm a massive fan of his, But from a business side of things we should be a bit more professional now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Taken from this article, which I've posted up a few times before now: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/06/swansea-city-back-in-big-time.html?utm_source=BP_recent It puts us safely in the bottom half for wage spend (I don't know about transfers but I doubt we're massively high on that either) and whilst the 124% of turnover figure is scary, Nibor has explained before now that this is total wages, not just footballing and that we're actually not that far off complying with Financial Fair Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Taken from this article, which I've posted up a few times before now: http://swissramble.b...ource=BP_recent It puts us safely in the bottom half for wage spend (I don't know about transfers but I doubt we're massively high on that either) and whilst the 124% of turnover figure is scary, Nibor has explained before now that this is total wages, not just footballing and that we're actually not that far off complying with Financial Fair Play. I may be a little thick here.....are they saying we spend £14/min on wages, or £14m/year? That is shocking labelling on that info! Our turnover looks so poor in comparison - I realise that there are parachute payments in there, but £11m really does show that we really can't expect to be any higher than mid table in the Championship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I may be a little thick here.....are they saying we spend £14/min on wages, or £14m/year? That is shocking labelling on that info! Our turnover looks so poor in comparison - I realise that there are parachute payments in there, but £11m really does show that we really can't expect to be any higher than mid table in the Championship Ha! It's £14m per year. As I said, Nibor has some good explanations for why the situation isn't so bad as that chart makes out, but it still highlights the necessity of the new stadium and increasing revenue in order to be able to balance the books and compete on the pitch. Based on that chart, our average finishing position is probably in line with our budget. Last year we underachieved rather, whilst the aim has to be more like Swansea, who overachieved spectacularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I may be a little thick here.....are they saying we spend £14/min on wages, or £14m/year? That is shocking labelling on that info! Our turnover looks so poor in comparison - I realise that there are parachute payments in there, but £11m really does show that we really can't expect to be any higher than mid table in the Championship take into account that some of our sponsership would be league 1 sponseship money not championship and that we have no corpate facilities at Ashton Gate then thats about right, The new ground corpate alone would add another 8 million min to that turnover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Our wages to turnover percentage was the worst in the league, 124%. The board have been really niave in squandering money imho. GJ and SC may have signed these players on high wages, but the board had to agree to it. Someone said earlier that SL went balistic when he found out about Swansea's wage bill. Surely as an owner of a football Club, or any business come to that, you would make it your business to find out what the competition are paying in wages? And make comparisons in outgoings. Pretty much a basic in business. This is why i feel KM should be given a little bit of slack. He's living in the shadows of two previous managers who were given pretty much free reign to spend freely. And now he's expected to achieve the same results if not better, by building his own team on scraps by comparison. It's pretty shocking tbh...and for all the good SL and the board have done in the past in other matters, it's been like taking 1 step forward and two back over the past few seasons. A shambles really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn Knowledge of the game has nothing to do with money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 how do derby generate £30m? they obviously do something right. we need the new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Our wages to turnover percentage was the worst in the league, 124%. Based purely off those figures, it's the worst in either of the top two leagues (possibly any, I've not seen other figures.) It's worse than Chelsea and Man City. There is a lot more to it than just that one figure, but it should be enough to convince anyone who believes we can compete at even Championship level without the new stadium that it would be very, very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Based purely off those figures, it's the worst in either of the top two leagues (possibly any, I've not seen other figures.) It's worse than Chelsea and Man City. There is a lot more to it than just that one figure, but it should be enough to convince anyone who believes we can compete at even Championship level without the new stadium that it would be very, very difficult. I'd love to see the research figures that prove having a new stadium will generate more income. With us being in a recession, and it being forcast to get worse over the coming years, with no daylight showing it's going to get better, then how is this new stadium going to generate the extra money needed? Busineses are tightening their belts and are not spending so much in hospitality and conference facilities at the moment. OK...i should imagine we won't have the same running costs each year as AG, but we still have the initial outlay. I really can't see us generating huge amounts, unless we make the Prem. Just my humble opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibs Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 I'd love to see the research figures that prove having a new stadium will generate more income. With us being in a recession, and it being forcast to get worse over the coming years, with no daylight showing it's going to get better, then how is this new stadium going to generate the extra money needed? Busineses are tightening their belts and are not spending so much in hospitality and conference facilities at the moment. OK...i should imagine we won't have the same running costs each year as AG, but we still have the initial outlay. I really can't see us generating huge amounts, unless we make the Prem. Just my humble opinion of course. To name a few off the top of my head: Sponsorship, Corporate facilities, the ability to attract bigger acts (Musicians etc.....), increased attendances - if you look at the majority of clubs that have moved to a new stadium, they have seen a decent increase in attendances. Would we really be moving to a new stadium if it would not generate more income? I think SL deserves a bit more credit than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 To name a few off the top of my head: Sponsorship, Corporate facilities, the ability to attract bigger acts (Musicians etc.....), increased attendances - if you look at the majority of clubs that have moved to a new stadium, they have seen a decent increase in attendances. Would we really be moving to a new stadium if it would not generate more income? I think SL deserves a bit more credit than that. Yes...all very well in a finacially secure period. But like i said, the recession is getting worse and for the forseable future, it's not going to get any better. Finding businesses that are going to spend big money on corperate and sponsership is going to be even harder. Especially if you are an unfashionable Championship side. I can see the benefits for large gigs though. But imho, we will have to undercut Cardiff by a considerable amount to get bands in. Especially as Cardiff has a rail network and hotels, bars and Restaurants within easy walking distance of their Stadium. As for Attendance...I really see it all being like Coventry tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Taken from this article, which I've posted up a few times before now: http://swissramble.b...ource=BP_recent It puts us safely in the bottom half for wage spend (I don't know about transfers but I doubt we're massively high on that either) and whilst the 124% of turnover figure is scary, Nibor has explained before now that this is total wages, not just footballing and that we're actually not that far off complying with Financial Fair Play. Question? Why are Portsmouth in that list if it was taken from the 09/10 season? and if it was from this seasons championship teams in 09/10 why are Swansea and Norwich in it? Or am i being really thick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Question? Why are Portsmouth in that list if it was taken from the 09/10 season? and if it was from this seasons championship teams in 09/10 why are Swansea and Norwich in it? Or am i being really thick? It's a little confusing, I agree. It's last season's championship teams but the figures are from 2009/10 (or in a couple of cases earlier) presumably because that's when full published accounts are available for. Hence Norwich's figures being surprisingly weak (they are from league one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibs Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Y As for Attendance...I really see it all being like Coventry tbh. I bloody hope not I was hoping it would have more of an effect like Swansea, Hull, Cardiff, Southampton, Reading etc....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.