So it looks like 20 "senior" pros plus those stepping up from the academy. (Last week before the signings there were 10 listed on the official plus the latest 5 plus 5 to come)
Average wages for League 1 per the PFA is between £1700 and £2500 pw. Say ours works out at £2000 on average pw. That gives Gross wages for the "20" at approx. £2,080,000 plus national insurance employers contribution at 13.8% = £2,367,040. Plus agents fees. Nearly all the players will have to be included in the 60% SMCP calculation (Willis & Haynes not) so the required SMCP Turnover is 2367040 x 100/60 = 3.945m
I would suggest given the lack of other incomes that the sale of Wilson is absolutely key to having a team on the pitch at all. So rough estimates
Player sales and compensation receivable £3.6m? (Wilson & Christie)
Match day sales 330k
Sponsorship and advertising £200k
Shop sales less cost of sales £150K
Prize monies £250K
other incomes £250k
Income estimate £4.78m
less
player costs £2.4m (see above)
Coaches & Manager £350k (inc Nat Ins)
Academy costs £250k (assume some coaches time and other overheads get it to £500k required spend)
Directors £350k (inc Nat Ins)
Other staff £200k (inc Nat Ins)
Interest charge £1.5m
overheads at Ryton & Sixfields & shop say £800k
Total costs £5.850m
Loss £1.07m (not a million miles away from break even)
There may be further cost savings to come so you could see in the accounts to 31/05/15 breakeven.
If you assume that "the overall football budget" is the operation of the football club by Otium then all the above costs are relevant including the interest charge. That means that whilst the Wilson fee is spent on the football side it is not all spent on players fees and wages. The football side as a whole has to stand on its own two feet I have no problem with that. I do not think there is an intention by SISU to provide further funds this coming season to fund losses and with Wilson going they wont have to because they can just roll up the interest charge in to the debt and not actually pay it all out (ie include the charge not the payment). I think we are far better to view things in this context and to temper expectation accordingly.
Keep the cost base similar and even paying additional match day costs it is easy to see how that could be improved by say a short term lease at the Ricoh with even limited other match day incomes (eg car parking, pitch side advertising, corporate promotions etc) - whilst things agreed long term or stadium built. :thinking about:
All just estimates of course others may see it differently
