ramblur Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Just noticed that in a reply to Scarlet Pimpernel I said that EBITDA is a better guide to headline loss....I meant 'better guide than'. When I looked at the 10/11 accounts I pointed out that the net proceeds of sale ,mentioned in PBSE, amounting to £196,352 would be net of any instalments we still owed to other clubs.Looking at 11/12 (the Varney year) I showed earlier that gross receipts/still to be received relevant to the year amounted to £1.225m,thus illustrating my earlier point. However,looking at this big jump,it doesn't seem quite right so I cast my mind back to the previous year and Hulse/Commons.It could well be that we were due incentivised payments for either/both (appearances/QPR being promoted/Celtic winning SPL are possibilities). If any such sums were due they may well have been received in 11/12 and thus skewed the figures (looks likely to me).Any such payments would go straight to the bottom line,as the actual profit/loss calculations on sales would have been done in 10/11. As a result of such possibilities,it's impossible to work out the receipts due to a particular year's departures-you could work it out and it might be right,but it could also be wrong because of 'jam' payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 The same calculation on expenses that I carried out for 10/11 (operating costs+admin costs,less total wages,depreciation and amortisation) gives a figure of £7.139m-from memory only,a very similar figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Great so in order to balance the budget we need to either: Raise revenue by selling players or getting more people into pride park. Or cut more expenditure, or Both. Either way we are still in the red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Great so in order to balance the budget we need to either: Raise revenue by selling players or getting more people into pride park. Or cut more expenditure, or Both. Either way we are still in the red. They've already said (in the directors' report) that we'll still be in the red this year,the question being by how much.I think the wages may be quite a bit down this year.Half year savings on Bywater,Leacock,Pearson and Cwyka will convert to full year savings.There'll be full year savings on Green,Shackell and Maguire,and part savings on Addison (as we only paid part of his wages last year),Croft,Tyson and Ball -no doubt I may have missed the odd one. To counter that,there'll be new full year wages for Keogh,O'Connor,Sammon,Coutts,Jacobs,Freeman,Hoganson,Gkojak All in all,that appears to be a likely reduction to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Missed out full year savings on Savies,so even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Missed out full year savings on Savies,so even better. Depends on whether being a low wage club is a good thing or not.As i understand it latest research reveals that its higher wage clubs that have the most success on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Depends on whether being a low wage club is a good thing or not.As i understand it latest research reveals that its higher wage clubs that have the most success on the field. I only meant even better in terms of narrowing the loss.You'd be quite right,wages rather than transfer spend is generally related to success (as the top 2 appear to be showing,but you could argue both cases there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Depends on whether being a low wage club is a good thing or not.As i understand it latest research reveals that its higher wage clubs that have the most success on the field. Is this really a fact? Having the 3 relegated teams below us would seem to indicate otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Is this really a fact? Having the 3 relegated teams below us would seem to indicate otherwise I think the clue lies in the word"relegated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I think the clue lies in the word"relegated". Not really. The 3 teams relegated from the Premier League will have significantly higher wage bills than ourselves, yet all 3 are below us in the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Not really. The 3 teams relegated from the Premier League will have significantly higher wage bills than ourselves, yet all 3 are below us in the league It was having higher wage bills that got them promoted.Their problems are nothing to do with wages,but I bet that the three teams that get promoted have higher wage bills than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It was having higher wage bills that got them promoted.Their problems are nothing to do with wages,but I bet that the three teams that get promoted have higher wage bills than us. Surely that doesn't really prove your fact though if 3 teams with higher wage bills finish below us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It was having higher wage bills that got them promoted.Their problems are nothing to do with wages,but I bet that the three teams that get promoted have higher wage bills than us. My own quick research suggests that all clubs promoted in the last five years with the possible exception of Blackpool have run a player wage bill of over £12m - ours might well be in the region of £8m. The problem with that though, is the figures aren't reliable. Most clubs only publish club, rather than player, wages. The player figures tend to come from press releases or seemingly authoritative investigations such as Swiss Ramble - there is no way of verifying these. There is also a sort of self fulfilling prophecy around promotion and wage bills. Apparently, the majority of players have promotion bonuses built into their contracts, so by getting promoted a club's wage bill might go up significantly - assuming that they count such bonuses in their wage bill figures. I have read that some promotion bonuses are 50% of the player's salary. If that were true, our £8m(?) wage bill could jump to £12m if we happened to get promoted. However, it does seem logical that higher wages give you a better chance of getting promoted, because the ability to pay higher wages gives you a larger pool of players that will come and play for your club. Then it comes down to whether or not the manager can select the right combination of players to bring in, as to whether those higher wages bring about promotion or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 My own quick research suggests that all clubs promoted in the last five years with the possible exception of Blackpool have run a player wage bill of over £12m - ours might well be in the region of £8m. The problem with that though, is the figures aren't reliable. Most clubs only publish club, rather than player, wages. The player figures tend to come from press releases or seemingly authoritative investigations such as Swiss Ramble - there is no way of verifying these. There is also a sort of self fulfilling prophecy around promotion and wage bills. Apparently, the majority of players have promotion bonuses built into their contracts, so by getting promoted a club's wage bill might go up significantly - assuming that they count such bonuses in their wage bill figures. I have read that some promotion bonuses are 50% of the player's salary. If that were true, our £8m(?) wage bill could jump to £12m if we happened to get promoted. However, it does seem logical that higher wages give you a better chance of getting promoted, because the ability to pay higher wages gives you a larger pool of players that will come and play for your club. Then it comes down to whether or not the manager can select the right combination of players to bring in, as to whether those higher wages bring about promotion or not. I suppose you get what you pay for most of the time.Anyway we will see at the end of the season we could do a league table of wages and see how it compares.Mind you if 1 team on higher wages finishes below us some people wont accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's not just a straight equation of high wages = better players it's also how you spend the money. We could all write a list of Derby players who have been on higher wages than the player currently holding the shirt at Derby who are much worse. Using our starting eleven from last week I'll start you with Legzdins - Bywater Brayford - Connolly Roberts - Camara Keogh - Clod Davis O'Brien - Todd Bryson - Pearson Coutts - Hendrie Hendrick - Savage Hughes - Lewis Ward - Earnshaw Sammon - Miller I think I'll stick with the cheaper options thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I suppose you get what you pay for most of the time.Anyway we will see at the end of the season we could do a league table of wages and see how it compares.Mind you if 1 team on higher wages finishes below us some people wont accept it. Well based on the fact that people have claimed we have the 4th lowest wage bill, I hope there is more than one team with a lower wage bill finishing below us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 My own quick research suggests that all clubs promoted in the last five years with the possible exception of Blackpool have run a player wage bill of over £12m - ours might well be in the region of £8m. The problem with that though, is the figures aren't reliable. Most clubs only publish club, rather than player, wages. The player figures tend to come from press releases or seemingly authoritative investigations such as Swiss Ramble - there is no way of verifying these. There is also a sort of self fulfilling prophecy around promotion and wage bills. Apparently, the majority of players have promotion bonuses built into their contracts, so by getting promoted a club's wage bill might go up significantly - assuming that they count such bonuses in their wage bill figures. I have read that some promotion bonuses are 50% of the player's salary. If that were true, our £8m(?) wage bill could jump to £12m if we happened to get promoted. However, it does seem logical that higher wages give you a better chance of getting promoted, because the ability to pay higher wages gives you a larger pool of players that will come and play for your club. Then it comes down to whether or not the manager can select the right combination of players to bring in, as to whether those higher wages bring about promotion or not. True to a certain extent but based on this theory we would have bounced straight back up to the Premier League with a record points total! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 True to a certain extent but based on this theory we would have bounced straight back up to the Premier League with a record points total! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> 'Then it comes down to whether or not the manager can select the right combination of players to bring in, as to whether those higher wages bring about promotion or not.' Can you spot any reasons why we didn't? [url=http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=nIGEfQiSzOPdjM&tbnid=b2g_X3lzOTcRcM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fteams%2Fhull-city%2F6470110%2FPaul-Jewell-waits-in-wings-to-rescue-Hull.html&ei=hZACUZLpDqqf0QXj3oGYDQ&bvm=bv.41524429,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNHUfakyCvF1MbKSPpz2cYaEe-DXrw&ust=1359208965839251]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01513/paul-jewll_1513939c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 In response to something B4 said on another thread,I've attempted to come up with Clough's net spend (in other words what the owners would likely have had to finance themselves.)The first part relates to net amounts actually paid out from 9/10 to 11/12,and given in that order:- £2.984m,£1.565m,£1.685m, giving a total of £6.234m. However,the 9/10 figure will include payments in respect of non Clough signings from previous years,and the 11/12 figure doesn't reflect what was o/s at the end of the year.To correct this,we have to deduct the former and add the latter: 6.234-2.602+0.066 = £3.698m One anomaly in respect of what was owing at the start of 9/10 relates to the Porter signing.I'll put this in at £450k,giving a revised figure (up to 30/6/12) of £4.148m. As far as 12/13 goes,there's a difficulty regarding the £1.3m net proceeds,which will no doubt be net of amounts owed to other clubs.My own guess is that the gross figure was probably around £2m (I think a bit under),so I'll use this as a guideline,to set against purchases of £3.6m.On this basis,the revised total would be £5.748m. (so B4 may have a point). Two points should be made however.Whereas the sales figures will definitely be received,the same can't definitely be said for the £3.6m 12/13 purchases (think Shackell/Maguire). For those who like to think in terms of fees only,then I've seen agents' fees/League levy ranging from 10-30% of the fees,so in terms of actual transfer fee spend,the £5.748m reduces somewhat (impossible to calculate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's not just a straight equation of high wages = better players it's also how you spend the money. We could all write a list of Derby players who have been on higher wages than the player currently holding the shirt at Derby who are much worse. Using our starting eleven from last week I'll start you with Legzdins - Bywater Brayford - Connolly Roberts - Camara Keogh - Clod Davis O'Brien - Todd Bryson - Pearson Coutts - Hendrie Hendrick - Savage Hughes - Lewis Ward - Earnshaw Sammon - Miller I think I'll stick with the cheaper options thanks! Anyone can try to prove anything they want with carefully selected examples.It actually proves nothing especially when we dont know what wages they were on and played in different times. especially when we dont know e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.