Uncle Albert Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/321544081618649089/photo/1 Apologies if this has been posted previously but it says it all really! [Data from 2011/2012 season] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stroudy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Not good reading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park End Boy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Did we win something ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezOfCity Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 We're in the top half of the wage spend, but our wage to percentage of turnover is astronomicly high. So do we have one of the lowest turnovers in the championship? May be misinterpreting the information but i think that's correct. Would take some good maths to work out a respective league table of turnover from that graph . . . gauntlet laid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 It highlights how bad the problem is. I'm looking forward to seeing it after this year's accounts are published, though. According to McInnes he had to half the wage budget for this season so things should* look rather healthier, even with the loss of revenue from relegation. *If the wage bill has actually come down that much of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashton_fan Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 So it (the ratio of wages to turnover) was 160% that season. It's got to be 60% next season or we'll have a transfer embargo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 It highlights how bad the problem is. I'm looking forward to seeing it after this year's accounts are published, though. According to McInnes he had to half the wage budget for this season so things should* look rather healthier, even with the loss of revenue from relegation. *If the wage bill has actually come down that much of course. Like you say , it's going to make interesting reading. The likes of James , Hunt , Stewart and Cisse would have been on silly money I reckon so their departures on top of Clarkson , Johnson , Pitman etc. should have made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Well I've just done a quick back of a fag packet calculation on ourselves and some close rivals although figures are extremely approximate owing to the difficulty of reading from the scales on the axes. Looks like this to me but I could be way out. City: Wages 18m equals 158/100*T so T =18m *100/158 which gives a turnover of around 11.4m Notts F: Wages 17m........118/100..........................................................................................14.4m Cardiff: Wages 21m.........102/100.........................................................................................20.6m Barnsley: Wages 7M.........80/100............................................................................................8.75m Whichever way you look at it, it looks as though Steve, to put it politely, has not been getting value for money from his squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfOfWestStreet Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I'm more concerned about the low turnover of the club (which we know is not profitable) especially with FFP round the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 No way have we halved it. I'll be surprised if it's down by half too, but that's what McInnes said he was asked to do last summer. As glynriley points out, the major earners James, Hunt, Stewart and Cisse have all departed and if their wages are as ludicrous as has been suggested that could be a saving of as much as £100k per week (if they were all on £25k pw which is the highest rumoured figure I've heard) which would equate to £5.2m per year; a substantial saving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM91 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 GET YOUR WALLET OUT STEVE!... oh, wait... so we're the club that lives the furthest outside our means? BRING TWO WALLETS STEVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Looks like only 7 teams spent more on wages (in absolute money) than us and look at the utter rubbish we've had to watch in the last 3 years. This level of mismanagement is up there with banks. It's an absolute disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City1970 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 BHZao30CQAAosCN.jpeg https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/321544081618649089/photo/1 Apologies if this has been posted previously but it says it all really! [Data from 2011/2012 season] It is even worse if you plot wages to matches won. Now that is alarming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTR Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Too many highly paid loan players and journey men,no loan signings under SOD,wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 It’s awful reading but what is worse is this information must have been known to the board at the time. I think it sums up what happen when successful businessmen with lots of money take over a football club. Any semblance of common sense goes straight out of the window. Steve Lansdown, with his partner, built up a multi-million pound business from nothing. If he had run Hargraves Lansdown in the same way he ran City, there would still be just the 2 of them working in a spare bedroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Its awful reading but what is worse is this information must have been known to the board at the time. I think it sums up what happen when successful businessmen with lots of money take over a football club. Any semblance of common sense goes straight out of the window. Steve Lansdown, with his partner, built up a multi-million pound business from nothing. If he had run Hargraves Lansdown in the same way he ran City, there would still be just the 2 of them working in a spare bedroom. Plus four innumerate accountants on lucrative loan deals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Really depressing reading. Its no wonder Lansdown is reigning in the spending hes had zero value for money. Whats really frustrating is that its not like we've even been good or a joy to watch after paying that sort of money. At least teams like Pompey and Cardiff get some resemblence of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 The problem with this is those players out of contract at the end of the season will not be offered the same contract so you can expect a lot of our players leaving at the end of the season. Only players who have the club at heart (Carey) will accept lower wages to play next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Cyril Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I assume turnover includes income from player sales. As a club we seem to be developing a pattern of buying for a fee and selling for nothing. Things would look a lot better if we developed a few more diamonds. Seems strange to long to be a selling club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herman Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 No way have we halved it. even if it was halved coming into this season, which i highly doubt with the arrivals of davies and baldock, then the signings of mcmanus and danns, who both will be on a fair old wedge, will have put us back to the old ways. add in danny wilson to that.... january was pretty sensible, pitman and woolford out who were probably on more than maloney and kelly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I have been banging on about this for a couple of years when I said with the money we have spent we should be up there challenging every year . But some on here were happy just to finish above the bottom 3 and used the term punching above our weight when defending managers and players. So we now have proof that we have punching well below our weight I hope all the sanctimonious and happy clapper brigade take note of this report and hold managers and players to account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YGBjammy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Really need a clearout of this squad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italian dave Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Shocking. Not just top, but top by some way. And completely agree with what Kingswood Robin says, the wages are bad enough, but the crap it's bought us is a disgrace: if you calculated the ratio of wages to performance, we'd be even further ahead of the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Red Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I have been banging on about this for a couple of years when I said with the money we have spent we should be up there challenging every year . But some on here were happy just to finish above the bottom 3 and used the term punching above our weight when defending managers and players. So we now have proof that we have punching well below our weight I hope all the sanctimonious and happy clapper brigade take note of this report and hold managers and players to account. My thoughts exactly. It does my bloody head in that our fans seem to think we punch above our weight at this level.. We have spent BIG in the 6 years we have been in the Championship and im sorry but we should be expecting better than the shite we have seen.. We are not a small club in the Championship, we have given the manager's we have had MORE than enough resources and backing yet somewhere along the line it has fo0ked up. The buck has to rightly or wrongly lie with the board. Piss poor signings and money just wasted. The name Stern John always springs to my mind. Its wasters like him that have got us where we are today. Useless journeyman ***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 The problem with this is those players out of contract at the end of the season will not be offered the same contract so you can expect a lot of our players leaving at the end of the season. Only players who have the club at heart (Carey) will accept lower wages to play next season. Good. They can all **** off then, as with the possible exception of Elliott very few who are out of contract can honestly say they have given it their best shot this season so expecting to get £10k+ a week in League One is taking the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippy273 Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I assume turnover includes income from player sales. As a club we seem to be developing a pattern of buying for a fee and selling for nothing. Things would look a lot better if we developed a few more diamonds. Seems strange to long to be a selling club! No one wants our rubbish anyway, most of our half decent players are out of contract this season. Only Albert will go but i doubt he will go for the £2-3m quoted previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Jim Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Good. They can all **** off then, as with the possible exception of Elliott very few who are out of contract can honestly say they have given it their best shot this season so expecting to get £10k+ a week in League One is taking the piss. Too right. Be glad to be shot of nearly all of them - I'd drive some of them to new clubs myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I have been banging on about this for a couple of years when I said with the money we have spent we should be up there challenging every year . But some on here were happy just to finish above the bottom 3 and used the term punching above our weight when defending managers and players. So we now have proof that we have punching well below our weight I hope all the sanctimonious and happy clapper brigade take note of this report and hold managers and players to account. Depends how you mean punching above our weight. If you mean the amount we were spending then maybe. But this second graph shows that last year we had got the 6th lowest level of income in the division. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHZZ7UhCMAEpkSN.jpg:large Really the argument shouldn't be that we should be challenging with the amount we were spending (though that is true) but that we probably shouldn't have been spending that much in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 The problem with this is those players out of contract at the end of the season will not be offered the same contract so you can expect a lot of our players leaving at the end of the season. Only players who have the club at heart (Carey) will accept lower wages to play next season. Problem?? The probability that most, if not all, the out of contract players will be sent packing (a number of them ignominiously and with a well deserved flea in the ear) is about the only thing to look forward to at BCFC at this particular moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 According to that table, we're the 10th biggest payer of wages (and only a couple hundred thousand off being about 14th). Add Portsmouth & Coventry to the mix as well, and we're likely to be down to 16th (as I said - give or take a few hundred thousand) That season we finished in 20th. So in actual fact, in terms of the wages paid, we weren't too far off where we should be. The problem for us is the Income. Yes, we're paying out too much, but Ashton Gate does not bring in the additional revenue required to compete at that level. We're the only club in the division without a single Corporate Hospitality Box. In terms of Income, there are only 3 or 4 clubs who generate less cash than us. Bear in mind about 8 or so clubs were still bagging parachute payments from the Prem, and you can suddenly see why we need to redevelop or move asap to get a stadium that actually generates cash. It's not necessarily all about the attendances and ticket prices (I think I read on our latest accounts that our Season Ticket income was only £2m, so even if we doubled the number of ST holders, you're still only talking £4m). The key to extra revenue is Corporate Hospitality (of which we have Zero), and use of the facility on a more regular basis. EDIT : I've just seen the 2nd link posted by London Bristolian. There were only 6 teams with Parachute Payments, but look at the green boxes - matchday income. We've got the 4th lowest, ahead of only Peterborough, Doncaster & Barnsley. That's because we have Zero Corporate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.