ccfc92
Well-Known Member
I'd say that's a tricky one, as the best players always demand the best wages.
Unfortunately, we have had numerous poor - average players on very good wages IMO
CCFC & The Ricoh (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter RoboCCFC90
- Start date
I'd say that's a tricky one, as the best players always demand the best wages.
Unfortunately, we have had numerous poor - average players on very good wages IMO
Grendel
Well-Known Member
JUST 29%. Mate your an idiot or on the piss or a WUM. I can gaurentee with possibly two exceptions that would be by far the highest percentage of any club in England - and you think its ok!!!!!
Manchester city pay less than 3%.
I'm saying from a variety of revenues the club spunked away millions per annum on useless managers who bought and played useless underperforming players yes. Compared to our main competitors, I'm not sure how the spend totted up but right from the start in 2007 the club should have been run with a manager more like it has this season and started to rebuild using a blend of youth and experience.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
When did I say it was okay? I was just saying it's 29% of our gate receipt revenue?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Still wouldn't work with £1.5 million rent with matchday costs would it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Anyone who discovered that fact would literally fall off their chair. No business could survive with such a high %
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
But the question for the Poll is "Were CCFC financially viable at the Ricoh?"
Using rough figures, I worked out a rough estimate of £1 million turnover.
So my answer was yes.
I wasn't taking into account my opinion on the matter, which is CCFC WERE paying an extortionate amount of rent.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
his first wife. His daughter works on the tour now and she is fit as well - must take after the mothers side!
That goes up every time you throw it in there !?............. I've never denied we were paying too much rent Grendel, it was one of many costs that should have been brought under control from 2005 onwards and particularly by new owners from 2007. The issue has not been the rent figure, it's the: how it was addressed and its relevance to all the other costs and spend...............and charges !
She's a proper stunner. If anyone is wondering what we're on about take a look.
Ive never seen a picture of fish's daughter.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So the average Manchester City ticket price is over £100? Didn't know that nvery interesting
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Very true, instead of the bullshit that Ranson came out with, should have just said, this is the income we get(attendences,sponsorship, league payments etc), this is our expenditure,( rent, match-day costs etc).
We are going to allocate 75% of income to total wages/transfer fees, and no more.
Would be up to employing decent commercial people then to up commercial income, renogotiate rent(at the time, most would have been salivating at Sisu taking on the council/ACL), and of course be up to the fans to attend and increase the income from attendances.
Set the chicken and egg scenario up straight away, except from an ownership point of view.
More people = More money = Better squad, rather than the other way round that is usually given out.
Also, never ever, ever appoint a twat like Coleman as manager.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
She was only the fishmongers daughter, but she lay on her back and said "fillet".
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Either way, Man City gate receipts will be around 2.4 million PER GAME as a price of £50 per ticket.
That's £54 Million per season on Premiership games
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Total revenue? I give up I'm surrounded by idiots
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Which works out at over six percent good job they renegotiated the rent or they would have been paying over ten million pounds a year:thinking about:Negotiation thats how...... need I expand this?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Total revenue would surely be even more ridiculous? If they're revenue of 50Mill for just gate receipts?
I think Grendels account has been hacked, he's normally more constructive and calculating than this :thinking about:
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The original post said our total gate receipts were? and the %age that the rent of this was?
You quoted Man City %age was less than 3%
Man city rent 3million per year you work it out
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
agreed, G accused me of being a WUM by trying to say I was saying our rent was acceptable. I didn't include my opinion, just rough figures to answer the Poll
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sorry? In sure I read somewhere that their turnover was £400 million?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
so.... their rent would be £12 million per year? 10 times ours..... What's your point....?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You did see £400 million but you're getting confused with turnover and how much they spend
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Not going to comment on Mr Ranson, but you'd have thought the first thing they would have done would have been to get the rent down if nothing else. That would have been the first logical thing to do for me, especially if you're taking over a basket case like our club - reduce fixed overheads as much as possible.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Agreed, you would have thought. TBH there is no point us mere mortals speculate on the economics of the club, as we will never know the true figures. Only an administrator would save us and find the truth, oh wait :thinking about:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I think it was Dave Whelan at JJB sports (or one of his senior employees) who had the idea to increase the overall floorspace in his shops by adding a mezzanine. This meant that where they couldn't reduce the overheads directly they had increased floorspace without the need to move to a larger unit with the equivalent floor space - brilliant idea. At a push you could argue that that is what SISU are hoping to achieve with the modular aspects of the new stadium, but it would be a very very big push
Rent, wage bill, policing costs, management and directors fees, matchday costs, interest charges..................all of it !! They didn't, they were incompetent and culpable and grossly negligent ! They were taken in by a number of self interested individuals who all profited and exited the scene better off, they then picked on one of numerous named overspends and the rest is history.................
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Think the two directors fees went when at least two of their loans were written off
(wish I had £20m to throw away like Geoffrey, over £1m Mike McG or even £666k like Sir Higgs) but yeah you'd have thought they'd have done something about the whole lot.
Last edited:
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
The answer to the question is Yes & no. Yes if the club had been managed in a way whereby a reasonable level of performance in the Championship was attained and more so if they found them selves in the Premier league. The answer is a very clear no if we muddled about in the lower reaches of the Championship and an even more emphatic no if we were in L1.
As with all things Sky Blue the answer is never absolute, it is always shaded with ambiguity and doubt. The only thing not in doubt is that we are very deep in the shit and our current owners seem to have no clue how to do anything that would get us out of it.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Are you saying we should have been paying less wages?
I certainly do. We could have had players that were just as good or even better on lower wages. We might even have got the same players on lower wages. If you want to say that isn't the case then how did clubs with a lower wage bill finish above us? And don't blame it all on our managers.
The best thing you can do is spend to your income. Not stretch your credit to your income. You then can put away your excess income and use it when needed. If we had excess income now we could have used it to bring in a striker. But because we have excessive debts the money that we had come in went elsewhere to where we needed. And before you spout crap about me having a go at SISU I will say I am not. It is all about securing the future of our club. We are in the shite because nobody looked after the finances at our club for many years. And each time someone took over they did an even worse job than the last one.
I am now in my 40's. I have 7 kids. 4 are now adults and I have a 12, 5 and 4 year old. Kids cost money. Yet I am retiring in 14 years and 2 months. My house is paid for. My cars are paid for. They may be older than average but they are mine. I don't have any loans. I pay my credit card off every month. I work with lads that have a six figure mortgage, loans on things like a nice new car, credit card debts yet they still spend 5k or more on a holiday. We will spend about 2k to 3k on a holiday. Not as exotic as most but we will still have a good time. The other lads look much better off than me. But there will come a time where they have to pay for everything. Will that be when I put my feet up and stop working?
Remember Yeovil last season? Low crowds to us. Much lower wage bill. They still managed to get promoted living within their means. The clubs with a wage bill of more than their income have been left with debt and nothing to show for it. Just like what has been happening to our club for 20 years or more. SISU have done a very good job by reducing our wage bill whilst still keeping us competitive. The only problem is that because of our debts and much reduced income by being in Northampton we didn't spend on a striker when it was important. I see the end of the season being a hard slog to stay out of a relegation battle now. We are going to pay the price once more for many years of mismanagement by different owners.
Do you see it any differently Grendull?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Yes, we should have been paying less wages, certainly low enough so that the club did not build up uncontrollable debts, but high enough to not run too much risk of demotion. Then you have to get VFM from your players.
Yes, studies seem to show the correlation between wages and league position, but it is not an absolute correlation as Yeovil proved last year in this league, it is a fairly loose one, with a lower wage bill your average chance of promotion decreases but also your chance of demotion increases. There are some statistics in http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Numbers-Game-Everything-Football/dp/0670922242&tag=skblta-21 go and read it if you want to be informed.
Last edited:
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
Are you saying he decided how much players should be paid and how long their contracts should be?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Were they any good or not?
Seyeclops666
New Member
You're an idiot - please uphold the simple rules of the English language.
