Comparative wages (1 Viewer)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

There's been some discussion of late relating to our wages and those of our peers. Getting exact information is quite hard - unless you want to but the full set of accounts for every club - which I don't. However, some of it is available via the wonder of the internet.

I have looked at a few clubs who have been quite stable in this division. It's hard to compare us to clubs who may have been in lower leagues and only just come up; or those who may still have been enjoying parachute payments. However, from accounts registered in the summer of '10, you can see approximately and comparatively where we are.

Remember, at that point, we are looking at a wage level of circa. £7.8m for CCFC. Anyway, our peers being as follows for the same term:

Watford £10.8m
Nottingham Forest £11.2m
Ipswich £17m
Bristol City £13.8m
Leicester £14.5m
Cardiff £13.5m
QPR £15.3m
Sheffield United £15.4m
Preston North End £11.3m

Teams like Hull were in the parish of £38m, but obviously were living off funds from times in the Premier League. Pompey were astronomic, but that's a different story!

According to Ken Dulieu, when interviewed in November, our salary level would have been reduced down to, or just below £7m for this coming season.

So, the next time one considers throwing a manager's name into the hat who likes to chuck a few quid around - Warnock or Davies - or a player such as Jason Robets you might fancy on loan; the above appears to be the financial landscape in which we exist.

In light of the Pompey debacle, not wishing to encourage profligacy, of course, so this isn't meant to advocate such, but wishing to begin to paint a picture of where we have been sitting for some time

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

Yeah, but Championship club turnover is in the same area, all these clubs spend too much on players salaries, it has to change.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Yeah, but Championship club turnover is in the same area, all these clubs spend too much on players salaries, it has to change.

Oh yeah, I can see that. My point isn't that we should match them to be successful. Not at all. It's to point at where, both historically and currently, we sit with regards the wage-paying food chain; and therefore our ability to attract players.

When Drinkwater went to Bansley on loan for example, Thorn eluded to us not being able to compete on salaries with clubs with budgets well in excess of ours. So, it's a comparative analysis I draw

 

[ajsccfc]

Sheffield Utd paying out more than Leicester and QPR is a bit of a surprise.

 

[tisza]

Reading just over 20 million according to their chairman

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Sheffield Utd paying out more than Leicester and QPR is a bit of a surprise.

Might that have been when they had players such as Beattie, Speed, Brown and Tonge?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

To be honest, PNE paying almost half as much as us again was more surprising

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Hopefully the FFP rules will create greater parity, but you have to wonder how many teams actually optimise their budgets and resources to gain a creative edge. For example...

1. Earmarking £100k per year to hire multiple scouts in cheap leagues (L2, non-league, Scandinavian leagues etc), offering them each a finder's fee in the form of a % of any future transfer fee of a player they recommend.

2. Creating a 'gap year' for all academy members who come of age with a policy that they all go out on loan for a season, gaining experience and some transfer value.

3. Greater commitment to loan players, such as being willing to pay a portion of the salary for an entire year's loan. Probably one of the most cost-effective way of getting players of gamechanging quality.

4. Exploitation of the Bosman system by being more willing to sell players and reinvesting the money on players available on frees, which one would think would create a surplus (which could be invested into the ideas above).

5. Any kind of long-term cap 'n' balance strategy ought to attract horse-trading investors who'd be happy to stump up some investment in exchange for later returns. Might seem ugly on paper, but if it brings the revenue it needs without harming the plan, then why not?

Etc etc. Just spitballing there, but there's nothing I've read about league ownership to suggest that most or even a few are being creative with their circumstances. It continues to be a game of keep-up by gambling with clubs' financial health.

 

[shmmeee]

We did number 5 in the Prem if I understand it correctly. Lots of fans were not happy with the idea.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

We did number 5 in the Prem if I understand it correctly. Lots of fans were not happy with the idea.

The problem there is that it wasn't integrated as part of a bigger plan; all the board was doing was driving the club deeper into debt (whilst profiting) with no strategy for long-term progress. I think fans can actually be quite understanding if ownership are transparent and open about the plans for growth.

For example: if investors stumped up the £750k for Scott Dann plus wages, then they could get a healthy return of £1.8m on a £4m transfer fee, leaving the club with £2.3m to spend on upgrading the squad - a task which would be much easier if the large scouting network was in place across the cheaper leagues, say. Ultimately that would represent 2.3m of investment which wouldn't have been there in the first place. That goes a long way if you have a framework in place to make every penny stretch.

 

[davebart]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

1. 1.8m plus 2.3m adds up to 4.1m. what happens to the initial 750K?
2. Isn't that what the club attempts to do anyway - buy players cheap and sell them on for more.

cap n balance??? are you making it up?

 

[shmmeee]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

1. 1.8m plus 2.3m adds up to 4.1m. what happens to the initial 750K?
2. Isn't that what the club attempts to do anyway - buy players cheap and sell them on for more.

cap n balance??? are you making it up?

1. The initial £750k is part of the £1.8m returned to the investor
2. The point he's making is that the club relies on outside investors buying players as a gamble, rather than the club putting money up.

I do think he's made up the name cap n balance though, can't find anything about it anywhere.

Still think it's a bad idea. Just invest with the club's money. You don't want outside influences on what happens on the pitch (chairman's mate wants *his* player playing/sold at a particular time)