ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Ramblur, Not quite sure if I'm reading you right, or if you have misunderstood the report. I think when Sam talked of non-playing wages, he was actually talking about "players not on the pitch" wages. He was saying that a large chunk of our playing wages are on the pitch, whereas other clubs have larger squads and have a large chunk of players wages applicable to players who don't actually get on the pitch. Feel free to ignore... :wacko: Whenever reference is made to "non player" wages,it always (unless otherwise stipulated) relates to wages other than players (management,coaching,admin etc).If your interpretation were correct,then I'm sure that more than a "few" would have greater wages tied up in players not on the pitch.I could reel off several likely candidates off the top of my head. We adopted a policy of non disclosure of players' wages a few years ago.The next accounts will nail it once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Players wages could have increased by £2m though, with £2m in savings elsewhere since the accounts quoted by Ramblur. Savings of £2m on the non playing side? Are you for real? Admin staff aren't paid anything like players,so it's not that easy to make that magnitude of cuts.Our Academy has been expanding rather than contracting and in respect of the high profile jobs,we've actually brought in Evans (the finance director having replaced a previous incumbent).I'd also point out that in this particular year we've had duplicate payments in relation to football management/coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 AnimalisaRam,I've just noticed on another forum that Rush is supposed to have said that this year's revenues should hit £20m,considerably aided by the play offs and Chelsea game,and that if we'd been in the Prem it would have hit £90m-£95m.Do you remember this? The latter point particularly interests me as we now know that this season's bottom club got £62m in tv money,and you can only budget for this worst case scenario.This would imply non tv income of £28m-£33m,which seems highly demanding,especially given that sizeable refunds would have been given to many S/T holders.Of course,you can't take the £20m as a base point because it's distorted by the play offs and you'd also have to strip out over £4m of tv income (to be replaced by the £62m).Therefore you'd have to more than double other income streams,including match receipts-given that it would be nigh impossible to do the latter,it would just put an even greater burden on the commercial side (and we know naming rights would be unaffected). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 On the wages issue on April Rish said the wages were £10.5m up to June 2013 but it had increased by £2m since then (no mention of it being players wages increasing by £2m) Maybe something has changed in a month, but it seems to me that Rush expected total wages to be at £12.5m for this year, by years end. Maybe when the accounts come out we will know.The club’s wage bill was £10.5m, which includes administrative staff, up to June 30 2013 but Rush says that has increased by more than £2m since. Read more: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derby-County-chief-executive-Sam-Rush-says-Rams/story-20882145-detail/story.html#ixzz336xOuISF Read more at http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derby-County-chief-executive-Sam-Rush-says-Rams/story-20882145-detail/story.html#dGeFYgeZSxUoP1Vw.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 In April they predicted a turnover of 17.3m One would assume this would be worse case - not including potential play off revenue. To got to 90m we would need £72m increase next season. If promoted £62m tv so we would need another £10 million from commercial revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 On the wages issue on April Rish said the wages were £10.5m up to June 2013 but it had increased by £2m since then (no mention of it being players wages increasing by £2m) Maybe something has changed in a month, but it seems to me that Rush expected total wages to be at £12.5m for this year, by years end. Maybe when the accounts come out we will know. Read more: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derby-County-chief-executive-Sam-Rush-says-Rams/story-20882145-detail/story.html#ixzz336xOuISF Read more at http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derby-County-chief-executive-Sam-Rush-says-Rams/story-20882145-detail/story.html#dGeFYgeZSxUoP1Vw.99 ...or maybe he expected us to believe wages would be £2m higher.I'm sure this first came out in the summer transfer window,with RD saying that a club official had told them the wages would be £2m higher.RD certainly thought this related to players' wages,as I can remember it featured heavily in a phone in,with one guy saying this equated to £40k a week.Just imagine the outcry if non players wages had increased by £2m ,with a modest playing budget unaffected.Not sure they'd have willingly broadcast this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 ...or maybe he expected us to believe wages would be £2m higher.I'm sure this first came out in the summer transfer window,with RD saying that a club official had told them the wages would be £2m higher.RD certainly thought this related to players' wages,as I can remember it featured heavily in a phone in,with one guy saying this equated to £40k a week.Just imagine the outcry if non players wages had increased by £2m ,with a modest playing budget unaffected.Not sure they'd have willingly broadcast this. That may have been RD take on it, not necessarily the clubs actual words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 In April they predicted a turnover of 17.3m One would assume this would be worse case - not including potential play off revenue. To got to 90m we would need £72m increase next season. If promoted £62m tv so we would need another £10 million from commercial revenue. 1) the £17.3m would have included Chelsea receipts. 2) you've forgotten to strip out over £4m of tv receipts we get in the Championship (we wouldn't get £62m +over £4m in the Prem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 AnimalisaRam,I've just noticed on another forum that Rush is supposed to have said that this year's revenues should hit £20m,considerably aided by the play offs and Chelsea game,and that if we'd been in the Prem it would have hit £90m-£95m.Do you remember this? The latter point particularly interests me as we now know that this season's bottom club got £62m in tv money,and you can only budget for this worst case scenario.This would imply non tv income of £28m-£33m,which seems highly demanding,especially given that sizeable refunds would have been given to many S/T holders.Of course,you can't take the £20m as a base point because it's distorted by the play offs and you'd also have to strip out over £4m of tv income (to be replaced by the £62m).Therefore you'd have to more than double other income streams,including match receipts-given that it would be nigh impossible to do the latter,it would just put an even greater burden on the commercial side (and we know naming rights would be unaffected). Yes, looking back through my tweets this was mentioned, something I missed in the write up - although I think those quoted would be for next season. i.e. £20m in the 14/15 season in the Champ, £90-95m in the Prem. Again, this maybe proved wrong if it is included in the video they mentioned.. On the ST refund, do you have a rough estimate of how much the club would have given out? Difficult to assess I know with a) no exact number of sales and b. the number of different price brackets involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 That may have been RD take on it, not necessarily the clubs actual words. Quite true,but RD were the ones who spoke to the club official and formed their opinion based on such conversation.Anyway,let me get this straight-we're now supposed to have increased non players' wages by £2m,yet pay a smaller proportion in non players' wages than some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Quite true,but RD were the ones who spoke to the club official and formed their opinion based on such conversation.Anyway,let me get this straight-we're now supposed to have increased non players' wages by £2m,yet pay a smaller proportion in non players' wages than some. No the wage bill is increased by £2m, not necessarily non playing wages, and we have a higher proportion on non playing staff than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 16000 St sold before the deadline. I reckon about £4.3m at £270 refund each , deliberately estimating high as there is a large proportion of the ground where season tickets cost less then £540 during the initial early bird period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Yes, looking back through my tweets this was mentioned, something I missed in the write up - although I think those quoted would be for next season. i.e. £20m in the 14/15 season in the Champ, £90-95m in the Prem. Again, this maybe proved wrong if it is included in the video they mentioned.. On the ST refund, do you have a rough estimate of how much the club would have given out? Difficult to assess I know with a) no exact number of sales and b. the number of different price brackets involved... If you strip out the play off receipts and Chelsea cup receipts,then £20m for next season looks demanding (you couldn't predict on the basis of replicating these 2 income streams),but,hey,it'd be nice if it happens. On the question of refunds,it would be futile to even attempt a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 It would be interesting to know if the club took out any kind of "insurance" on those refunds. I've just been reading about a Belgian supermarket who have offered their customers a free weekly shop if Belgium win the World Cup. If they win then the Supermarket would be down to the tune of a few million euros, so they have bet 50k on Belgium winning – just in case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 No the wage bill is increased by £2m, not necessarily non playing wages, and we have a higher proportion on non playing staff than most. Well,the next set of accounts will make interesting reading.Not sure how you've arrived at the last part of your sentence.If a few indeed have a higher proportion on non players,it doesn't automatically mean that we have a higher proportion than most,as we could have the same proportion as a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 If you strip out the play off receipts and Chelsea cup receipts,then £20m for next season looks demanding (you couldn't predict on the basis of replicating these 2 income streams),but,hey,it'd be nice if it happens. On the question of refunds,it would be futile to even attempt a guess. I heard that the club estimated the refund at just short of £2m £90m would surely not be that hard in the prem, Taking out the tv income leaves £28m From Season tickets, gate receipts, merchandising, commercial revenue both matchday and other wise. I also dont know if anybody else noticed by the club seem to be doing a lot more events, I get emails all the time saying do I want to go to this and that, they are even doing the boxing on sat!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Well,the next set of accounts will make interesting reading.Not sure how you've arrived at the last part of your sentence.If a few indeed have a higher proportion on non players,it doesn't automatically mean that we have a higher proportion than most,as we could have the same proportion as a lot. when they where talking about this it was on the ffp topic and how its unfair on some clubs, ie clubs that were trying to meet it but it was nigh on impossible due to players not in the match day team on legacy contracts. That was what I took it as anyways. JV made special mention saying he appreciated what forest and bolton where 'trying' to do, even though they have breached it I think he said 50% of teams have breached the rules of which half just ignored them (QPR) and the other half had no chance but have tried (bolton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Am now three short of the most liked post. Might frame it.I just liked it even though I didn't read it. I did read your tweets though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Don't forget the payment based on league position, Newcastle dropped 2.25 mil for slipping 3 places on final day, works out at roughly 750k per place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Don't forget the payment based on league position, Newcastle dropped 2.25 mil for slipping 3 places on final day, works out at roughly 750k per place. There's 1.2m per place factored into the tv revenue.http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/305773.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.