Astute
Well-Known Member
Not thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
I'll read that later. Didn't realise we were thread hopping.
Not thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
Never only on 2 threads don't believe it must be a first on here for a long timeNot thread hopping. Same subject more or less on two threads at the same time. Gets a bit confusing
1) the club won't be killed.
2) only 4 teams can play in the champions league, only 20 in the PL if mediocrity kills clubs why are there 72 football league clubs and a massive none league scene?
To say it will kill the club is pretty odd comment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
As I've said i am stupid. I want you to explain OSB's post only on this thread and how it reconciles with your view on Bournemouth I will truly find it enlightening.
Sorry I was wrong it will make it stronger
Our problem when we were in the Championship was that we were paying top wages for poor players. If we got promoted this season we would have much higher attendances than we have now. And we would have a manager in TM that would spend wisely. I am not saying it would be easy. But it isn't all doom and gloom as some say. It isn't how much money you have. It is how wisely it is spent. We would be up against clubs burning through money not being earned. But a successful season should see us somewhere near the over 20k per game we had before SISU took over.
And we were paying quite a lot of rent
Torch read the replies in this thread.
All we get are excusses for why we can't succeed.
People need to stop making excuses for our awful none committed owners.
We need to own our own ground
We need pie money
We need fans to turn up
We need 52 weeks a year income
We need We need!!
Well there is only one party involved in this sorry state of affairs who can do anything about it?
I know I hate these owners but I will give them credit when it is due.
Up to now they have done little to make me do that.
They're not making excuses while we can't succeed. On the flip side this thread is full of comments suggesting that the Club DOESN'T need any of this extra income. Funny, how all the other clubs throughout the leagues need it, just us who doesn't apparently. if it didn't matter then FFP wouldn't exist.
It's like all the hysterical girls last week wetting themselves over Waggot's season tickets comments. What? Clubs get more money when fans buy season tickets shocker.
No one is happy in League One and one is willing to put up with it.
To me it isn't that we don't need as much income as we can get as we do. It is those that try to make out that all clubs get the revenue that we are now missing out on. Or make out that all the revenues for all other clubs is a massive amount and don't take the expenses into account.
By your own admission Howe is a good manager. The wage bill is an expense. That expense was £17 million in the championship. Southampton secured promotion with a £29 million wage bill.
We also know that even when we had 20,000 people through the door a week the revenue generated was only £10 per customer.
Given that our actual genuine revenue is very limited. Under no circumstances would we be able to match clubs like Bournemouth. We would be a club that has far more in common with the likes of Rotherham.
Don't Huddersfield have somebody throwing money in too?
Don't Huddersfield have somebody throwing money in too?
What would it take to survive the league? Not win the league?
Found an article from Feb that says their owner has put in nearly £40m
We know from our previous time in the Championship that despite having decent crowds we were down in the bottom clubs in terms of revenue. So we'd be starting at a disadvantage. Of course not impossible as spend doesn't directly equate to success but I think it would be foolish to think there's not a link.
Of the 24 teams in the Championship up to 9 will be receiving parachute payments of over £20m a year. You then have to factor in the owners who will take a gamble and spend big. So realistically at least half the teams will have budgets that absolutely dwarf ours making it unlikely we will compete with them. Would the fans settle for season after season of hoping not to be relegated from the Championship?
Not sure that's why I asked the question. How much are they throwing in? What gates and ticket revenue do they average per home game?
Over how long a period? What is their actual debt?
Dean Hoyle has pumped £37.2m into Huddersfield Town over the last six year.
Club lose £6.8m last year and expected to lose another £6m this season.
The Championship club lost £6.8m last year compared with £4m in the previous 12 months and the spending on football costs was £12.6m compared with £13m the year before.
turnover of £10.8m included matchday revenue of £3.379m, TV and League income of £4.227m and commercial and advertising income of £1.276m.
Town would be in a sorry state were it not for the financial commitment of owner-chairman Hoyle, and Town are expected to lose another £6m this year (2014-15).
There were 9,258 season-card holders last season
After the year end, Hoyle converted £3.5m of his existing loans to share capital.
During the year, he gave £6m of loans and also repaid £2m of loans to previous chairman Ken Davy, in connection with the purchase of the 40% share.
Just did a quick google of Charlton, Sheff Wed and Forest, who were mid table last season, and it looks like they've all had owners put in investments in the tens of millions.
Also saw reference to a football finance expert saying at least a £25m budget was needed to compete at that level.
Just did a quick google of Charlton, Sheff Wed and Forest, who were mid table last season, and it looks like they've all had owners put in investments in the tens of millions.
Also saw reference to a football finance expert saying at least a £25m budget was needed to compete at that level.
Doesn't necessarily have to be Huddersfield as the example either. Which other teams have enjoyed mid table mediocrity in the championship for a number of years? Let's be honest, currently that's the best we can hope for as a club for numerous reasons (without going into them) what does that cost to achieve? Can we achieve that without extra funding from our owners? That's what I'm interested in knowing.
Again over how long? Sheffield Wednesday and Forest aren't exactly what you'd call stable clubs either. Jump from manager to manager as if that's the answer which must cost them a few quid on it's own spanking loads on players that don't deliver. Not so different from our failed game plan when we we're last there. That's a money pit all on it's own.
There's that word compete again. What do you actually mean by compete? Compete for automatic promotion? Compete for a playoff place? Compete for mid table mediocrity? Compete for successfully missing out on relegation?
With a global player market and freedom of movement, though, it's tricky to get right.
I'm not going to pick through every clubs accounts but its pretty clear we're at a big disadvantage.
We are being run as self sufficient - hard to argue that shouldn't be the case. We know for a fact that the teams receiving parachute payments, which can be up to nine teams in the Championship in any one season, will have an additional £20m plus on top of their regular budget. We know that several clubs will have owners who are prepared to 'have a punt' and we know, from figures shown on the forum several times, that when previously in the Championship while getting decent crowds and a fully running commercial side of the club our revenue was the fourth lowest in the division.
I would conclude from that we will have one of the lowest player budgets in the division and therefore, although spend is not directly linked to performance, will struggle to compete. To be competitive in my mind we'd be talking about at least mid-table if not challenging higher up. The reality for us is that it will be regular relegation battles unless we punch above our weight.
The saddest part is that the sale of ACL to Wasps means that even when we do finally see the back of SISU things are unlikely to improve. Our only real options for a brighter future are:
1) Wasps fail and sell ACL at a reasonable price;
2) Someone funds a new ground, they would essentially need to gift the cost of the land and build;
3) A billionaire owner who doesn't mind losing money;
4) Significant changes in regulation and revenue sharing to level the playing field - we would still be behind others but the difference might be smaller.
Watford are a club who have done well whilst not spending too much cash, they have there special arrangement with Udinese as well through the owners which helps.I'm not going to pick through every clubs accounts but its pretty clear we're at a big disadvantage.
We are being run as self sufficient - hard to argue that shouldn't be the case. We know for a fact that the teams receiving parachute payments, which can be up to nine teams in the Championship in any one season, will have an additional £20m plus on top of their regular budget. We know that several clubs will have owners who are prepared to 'have a punt' and we know, from figures shown on the forum several times, that when previously in the Championship while getting decent crowds and a fully running commercial side of the club our revenue was the fourth lowest in the division.
I would conclude from that we will have one of the lowest player budgets in the division and therefore, although spend is not directly linked to performance, will struggle to compete. To be competitive in my mind we'd be talking about at least mid-table if not challenging higher up. The reality for us is that it will be regular relegation battles unless we punch above our weight.
The saddest part is that the sale of ACL to Wasps means that even when we do finally see the back of SISU things are unlikely to improve. Our only real options for a brighter future are:
1) Wasps fail and sell ACL at a reasonable price;
2) Someone funds a new ground, they would essentially need to gift the cost of the land and build;
3) A billionaire owner who doesn't mind losing money;
4) Significant changes in regulation and revenue sharing to level the playing field - we would still be behind others but the difference might be smaller.
Just sort out a good rent deal look at West Ham they are now getting a ground for vertualy nothing if the figures coming out are correct so therefore they are in a better situation then all the ground owning clubs.
I think they have a Local Authority that sees benefits of local sport in the community. Unlike some I could mention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33780720
Watford are a club who have done well whilst not spending too much cash, they have there special arrangement with Udinese as well through the owners which helps.
I'm not absolutely sure on the figures but I think they're liable to pay around £3M per season much like Man City.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?