122% of turnover on wages over 10 years

[And Its Smith]

The failed project:

 

[Davefevs]

….bailed out by an inflationary transfer market.

Boom time is always followed by bust.

[BTRFTG]

Utter madness but what the graphic actually shows is wages are pretty much immaterial once you reach The Premier and are strong enough to stay there. Where it proves catastrophic is in trying to reach to The Premier and failing to get and stay there.

If you accept such gambling to be reckless you also, by default, have to accept The Premier is now a closed shop and we might as well not bother about getting there.

[Bristol Rob]

Until the stadium redevelopment was completed, turnover was always going to be low (unless of course, the way Bristol Sport have structured things it makes no difference) compared to other clubs with better facilities.

But it is difficult to escape the fact we pay strong wages for average players.

[TonyTonyTony]

Is it a surprise that non parachute clubs from the Championship, that have been in and around the top 6 for a few years and not been promoted* have the highest wages?

*Brentford have of course been promoted, but this snapshot was when they were in the championship and had no previous parachute payment

[BTRFTG]

14 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Until the stadium redevelopment was completed, turnover was always going to be low (unless of course, the way Bristol Sport have structured things it makes no difference) compared to other clubs with better facilities.

But it is difficult to escape the fact we pay strong wages for average players.

Stadium income is relatively immaterial as it accounts for less than one third of turnover, thus the redevelopment argument is a red herring. Ticket sales bring in about the same as City receive from The Premier in solidarity payment, so those moaning about the 'unfairness' of parachute payments think on......

[Baba Yaga]

Cool graph but seems a bit odd having it done over a ten year period like that (although I am a big fan of swiss ramble). I remember 2011-13 it seemed to me like SL accepted relegation to sort out the wage bill. Not sure if wages to turnover was any better under LJ/Ashton but they had a good run of transfer fees for a few years which made things seem a lot more rosey until that dried up, now we are back to more of a downturn again. Like people say it shows the difference between clubs who never made the premier league and those that did. Huddersfield for instance I am sure their number would be around 100 if they didn't make the prem for 2 seasons/get parachute payments.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Baba Yaga

[DirtySanchez]

The level of personal investment from Steve Lansdown over this period of £169m and player sales of £83m to cover City's losses.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1470649270722306053?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1470649270722306053|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bristolpost.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fbristol-city-news-transfers-live-6346622

 

[GrahamC]

I thought Brentford were meant to be the model to follow?

156%, blimey.

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, DirtySanchez said:

The level of personal investment from Steve Lansdown over this period of £169m and player sales of £83m to cover City's losses.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1470649270722306053?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1470649270722306053|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bristolpost.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fbristol-city-news-transfers-live-6346622

 

As we suspected Uncle Steve is just in it for the money. 
 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

I thought Brentford were meant to be the model to follow?

156%, blimey.

As per my tweet, Brentford traditionally paid decent wages, but lower fees (less amortisation cost) and got better value from those players both in terms of minutes on the pitch and wgat they sold them on for.

I’d say their model is still one to look very favourably at.  They didn’t waste money like we did.

[frenchred]

Just shows how badly ran our club is from top to bottom

[BTRFTG]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As per my tweet, Brentford traditionally paid decent wages, but lower fees (less amortisation cost) and got better value from those players both in terms of minutes on the pitch and wgat they sold them on for.

I’d say their model is still one to look very favourably at.  They didn’t waste money like we did.

Not forgetting their figure will look very different in a couple of years post Premier income. 

Their model is certainly one to mirror.

[Fordy62]

I wonder how different the results would look if you split those ten years into two sets of five?

[Pugofwar]

Depending which way you look at it this can either make for depressing reading or be a cause for optimism.

https://salarysport.com/football/sky-bet-championship/bristol-city/ 

If we can shift the likes of Wells, Palmer and Simpson (I really hope he is pay-as-you-play) off the wage bill then it doesn't seem so bad. 

 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Pugofwar said:

Depending which way you look at it this can either make for depressing reading or be a cause for optimism.

https://salarysport.com/football/sky-bet-championship/bristol-city/ 

If we can shift the likes of Wells, Palmer and Simpson (I really hope he is pay-as-you-play) off the wage bill then it doesn't seem so bad. 

 

Really do not expect Simpson to be on much of a wage at all.

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

As we suspected Uncle Steve is just in it for the money. 
 

It's no wonder he prefers the rugby 

[CyderInACan]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Really do not expect Simpson to be on much of a wage at all.

What's an educated guess though do you think? Even Rene Gilmartin as 3rd choice goalie, destined never to play a game for us but a cracking pundit on RobinsTV, was on over a hundred grand a year. 

[pongo88]

Players’ salaries usually get mentioned, but rarely the other staff. Any suggestions for Scott Murray as kit man, Brian Tinnion and the various coaches etc?

[GrahamC]

10 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

What's an educated guess though do you think? Even Rene Gilmartin as 3rd choice goalie, destined never to play a game for us but a cracking pundit on RobinsTV, was on over a hundred grand a year. 

Double that.

Difference is though that Simpson has been in the match day squad 18 times already this season (2 starts, 1 sub appearance, 15 times unused but on the bench).

Gilmartin sat on the subs bench just 4 times in 2 ******* years, so was called either back up goalie coach, women’s team goalie coach & then U23 assistant to justify his salary.

One of the most bizarre signings we have ever made.

[CyderInACan]

Just now, GrahamC said:

Double that.

 

I had a feeling it was 4k. But talked myself out of it as that would've been MENTAL. He was good in the matchday studio though. What a story. 

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

One of the most bizarre signings we have ever made.

and that's saying something . . . 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

As per my tweet, Brentford traditionally paid decent wages, but lower fees (less amortisation cost) and got better value from those players both in terms of minutes on the pitch and wgat they sold them on for.

I’d say their model is still one to look very favourably at.  They didn’t waste money like we did.

 

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Not forgetting their figure will look very different in a couple of years post Premier income. 

Their model is certainly one to mirror.

Thought a couple of years back that perhaps we might be or be able to have become a bit of a Brentford plus- their model is good but with added stadium and revenue it would have given us a bit more leeway about who to keep, sell, what % to reinvest basically- bit of a win-win.

Hasn't aged well! Of course they as well as the likes of Watkins and Toney, utilised the foreign market very well- both on and off the pitch,. ie performance and profit.

Benrahma and Maupay were two excellent examples of a strong ROI in this regard.

I  also believe that more likely, someone like Brentford would have yielded more a) On or b) Profitability off the pitch out of a couple of our foreign signings- Eliasson an example I think could have flourished a bit more there and Nagy in a truly consistent system, with more of a possession emphasis etc. Kalas or Jansson- wonder if Kalas e.g. might have pushed on a bit more there than here. Still very good for us of course.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[CodeRed]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

As per my tweet, Brentford traditionally paid decent wages, but lower fees (less amortisation cost) and got better value from those players both in terms of minutes on the pitch and wgat they sold them on for

I’d say their model is still one to look very favourably at.  They didn’t waste money like we did.

it's wages to turnover....wages probably competitive but not excessive but I'd say their turnover is was of the lowest in the Championship - Griffin Park = small ground, no off field income, limited hospitality, some rent from their rugby tennants but little else visible on my visits.  All changed now of course..

[Pezo]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Thought a couple of years back that perhaps we might be or be able to have become a bit of a Brentford plus- their model is good but with added stadium and revenue it would have given us a bit more leeway about who to keep, sell, what % to reinvest basically- bit of a win-win.

Hasn't aged well! Of course they as well as the likes of Watkins and Toney, utilised the foreign market very well- both on and off the pitch,. ie performance and profit.

Benrahma and Maupay were two excellent examples of a strong ROI in this regard.

I  also believe that more likely, someone like Brentford would have yielded more a) On or b) Profitability off the pitch out of a couple of our foreign signings- Eliasson an example I think could have flourished a bit more there and Nagy in a truly consistent system, with more of a possession emphasis etc. Kalas or Jansson- wonder if Kalas e.g. might have pushed on a bit more there than here. Still very good for us of course.

The problems started when we became a Brentford- rather than a Brentford+. We thought we could blow them out of the water on transfer fees we learned that total income was far more important to a team in tier 3 and 4 and we lacked the reputation of selling players on for a profit and providing those lower clubs with % sell on fees whereas Brentford had all the experience and evidence.

We had to go for the players that Brentford didn't want and we got the players that Brentford didn't want.

Brentfords model is the only way of us getting up but our recruitment can't just be equal to what everyone else is doing it has to be better and unfortunately it's been worse. Now would be the time to start that model again with the market as low as it is and Brentford looking at bigger fish.

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Thought a couple of years back that perhaps we might be or be able to have become a bit of a Brentford plus- their model is good but with added stadium and revenue it would have given us a bit more leeway about who to keep, sell, what % to reinvest basically- bit of a win-win.

Hasn't aged well! Of course they as well as the likes of Watkins and Toney, utilised the foreign market very well- both on and off the pitch,. ie performance and profit.

Benrahma and Maupay were two excellent examples of a strong ROI in this regard.

I  also believe that more likely, someone like Brentford would have yielded more a) On or b) Profitability off the pitch out of a couple of our foreign signings- Eliasson an example I think could have flourished a bit more there and Nagy in a truly consistent system, with more of a possession emphasis etc. Kalas or Jansson- wonder if Kalas e.g. might have pushed on a bit more there than here. Still very good for us of course.

Lest not forget whilst traditionalists laughed at the idea Brentford were one of the first clubs to sign up to the use of 'data' in driving their recruitment process. At the time I believe only Liverpool, Leicester & Man City were signed up to the concept.

What does a statistician know about football that an ex pro doesn't? Quite a lot results appear to suggest.

[frenchred]

18 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Lest not forget whilst traditionalists laughed at the idea Brentford were one of the first clubs to sign up to the use of 'data' in driving their recruitment process. At the time I believe only Liverpool, Leicester & Man City were signed up to the concept.

What does a statistician know about football that an ex pro doesn't? Quite a lot results appear to suggest.

They also took the brave step of abandoning their academy and not just following everyone else. Must save them a fortune

[Mr Popodopolous]

37 minutes ago, Pezo said:

The problems started when we became a Brentford- rather than a Brentford+. We thought we could blow them out of the water on transfer fees we learned that total income was far more important to a team in tier 3 and 4 and we lacked the reputation of selling players on for a profit and providing those lower clubs with % sell on fees whereas Brentford had all the experience and evidence.

We had to go for the players that Brentford didn't want and we got the players that Brentford didn't want.

Brentfords model is the only way of us getting up but our recruitment can't just be equal to what everyone else is doing it has to be better and unfortunately it's been worse. Now would be the time to start that model again with the market as low as it is and Brentford looking at bigger fish.

That only looks at one part albeit an important part of the model though- Henry, Watkins and Toney are all examples of course- Pinnock too? Unsure where he started though.

See also...in no particular order. Raya replaced Bentley for a similar price maybe cheaper and that's worked out quite well but not even thinking of him- or Jansson eg- he was relatively big-ticket for them but at the same time he had experience of the English game at the time he joined- as did Canos.

Yes, there will be misses as well as hits- to be expected but both on and off the pitch see...and this is without research save for the fees of Dalsgaard, Benrahma, Mbeumo, Maupay

• Dalsgaard- he left on a free but think he was rather good? Unsure he's been replaced either as such.
• Jensen
• Norgaard
• Mbeumo

Then off the top of my head- the two big foreign additions that were excellent on the pitch and yet delivered a big profit off it- Benrahma and Maupay. As for the 1st 4, all were of use getting up and of the 3 who remain 3 have been of use in the PL.

How many of these were we in for- how many were on our radar? In the case of the last two, they got a lot for not a lot of outlay.

Kodjia was a good example of us getting it right in this regard but not many others- and again could we have done more to develop, enhance and maintain value on and off the pitch in some cases? Magnússon as well was alright on the pitch and we made a small profit perhaps off it? I digress.

1. Dalsgaard- fee to join, £990k. From the Belgian League as well, which wouldn't have had such significant wages. He left on a free but was a key part of their promotion side arguably.
2. Mbeumbo- Actually a bit higher tbh, £5.85m but he joined from Ligue 2- again wages might have been lower? He's been worth it and has room for growth and if required profit on disposal- he's only 22!
3. Maupay- Plucked from Ligue 1 in Summer 2017 I believe. Joined for £1.8m, sold 2 years on for £20m!
4. Benrahma- Joined from Nice for £1.53m in 2018 and I assume that they were in Ligue 1- sold for well actually it's complex, there was a loan fee of £3.96m in Autumn/Summer 2020 and the 2nd half to complete the deal was a £20.79m fee in the January window- in addition to the loan fee IIRC.,

Those last two what a nice ROI. Also did a little bit of further reading- although nominally at Ligue 1 clubs, in the case of Maupay and Benrahma they joined Brentford from Ligue 1 clubs but off the back of doing alright or well in Ligue 2- there is a market we perhaps could have tapped more.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, CodeRed said:

it's wages to turnover....wages probably competitive but not excessive but I'd say their turnover is was of the lowest in the Championship - Griffin Park = small ground, no off field income, limited hospitality, some rent from their rugby tennants but little else visible on my visits.  All changed now of course..

I know

[CodeRed]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I know

I know you know  !

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

I know you know  !

I know you know that I know.