Is our budget any bigger than last year?

[sage]

22 hours ago, MadAmster said:

Back to the original question... Probably. We'll have similar or better crowds, IMO. We have the income from a shirt sponsor which we didn't have last season. We will have whatever profit we made last season as well to dip into. If I've gauged it correctly, that would be in excess of £6M. We're not allowed to pay big fees, they have to be "moderate" at most which, in L1, is probably around half a million max. 

PW saying he can't spend 300K on a player or that would reduce him to just the 1 rather than loans/freebies which would see more players incoming. IMO, that is kidology on his part, trying to convince clubs we are still penniless so they don't try to apply the DCFC "surcharge" to any fees.

Of course, we will only know for sure when the accounts are published around March 2024.

There is no way our player budget is £6m higher than last year.

No evidence whatsoever 

[Gerry Daly]

24 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

Our budget last season was based on gates of 17K. We didn't overspend on the budget based on that size of crowd. Our actual average gate was 27295. That's 10295 extra tickets per game. Take £20 a pop as an average and that's £6M over and above the budget.

If there's a mistake in my arithmetic, I'd be pleased to hear what it is.

I am extrapolating some things here but using known fact as the baseline. Based on that 17K gate based budget, part of the business plan, agreed to by the EFL, was a maximum spend of, IIRC, £8M. Now, I am sure that if we had gone over that spend the EFL would NOT have relaxed the restrictions on fees etc. If we had overspent the budget, the EFL would not have relaxed a single thing. That leaves the circa £6M on the "extra" ticket sales. The only guess I used was the average ticket price of £20. Even if the average was £15, that's still £4.5M over and above budget.

I wouldn’t want to comment on the figures you use - for example I have never seen the figure of 17K attendances anywhere before - but I agree with the logic of your argument. We must surely have more money than we thought we would have or might have based on a worst case estimate that would have been used for the business plan. Nobody would have planned on the basis of 27,295 average gates for last season and every likelihood of the same if not even better this season. 

[sage]

33 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

Our budget last season was based on gates of 17K. We didn't overspend on the budget based on that size of crowd. Our actual average gate was 27295. That's 10295 extra tickets per game. Take £20 a pop as an average and that's £6M over and above the budget.

If there's a mistake in my arithmetic, I'd be pleased to hear what it is.

I am extrapolating some things here but using known fact as the baseline. Based on that 17K gate based budget, part of the business plan, agreed to by the EFL, was a maximum spend of, IIRC, £8M. Now, I am sure that if we had gone over that spend the EFL would NOT have relaxed the restrictions on fees etc. If we had overspent the budget, the EFL would not have relaxed a single thing. That leaves the circa £6M on the "extra" ticket sales. The only guess I used was the average ticket price of £20. Even if the average was £15, that's still £4.5M over and above budget.

That is income you are referring to.

The thread is about our player budget

[ram59]

5 minutes ago, sage said:

There is no way our player budget is £6m higher than last year.

No evidence whatsoever 

I would say that there is plenty of evidence to say that our budget is £6m higher than the start of last year. But that's not to say that that money is available.

At the start of last season the club would have budgeted for crowds of less than 20k, around £2.5m less than actual, they wouldn't have budgeted for the extra income from TV and cup runs, probably another £700k. Add to these sums £2.5m in transfer fees received this season and a newly anticipated crowds of 25k plus for the coming season will bring in another £2m plus over what would have been budgeted for at the start of last season.

That's not to say that this 'extra' income is all profit and is available to spend, but it would significantly improve the anticipated balance sheet for last season and this one. Maybe DC anticipated having to subsidise considerable losses over the first 2 years, but it's now in the happy position of not having to do so or just having to cover much smaller losses?

 

[sage]

6 minutes ago, ram59 said:

I would say that there is plenty of evidence to say that our budget is £6m higher than the start of last year. But that's not to say that that money is available.

At the start of last season the club would have budgeted for crowds of less than 20k, around £2.5m less than actual, they wouldn't have budgeted for the extra income from TV and cup runs, probably another £700k. Add to these sums £2.5m in transfer fees received this season and a newly anticipated crowds of 25k plus for the coming season will bring in another £2m plus over what would have been budgeted for at the start of last season.

That's not to say that this 'extra' income is all profit and is available to spend, but it would significantly improve the anticipated balance sheet for last season and this one. Maybe DC anticipated having to subsidise considerable losses over the first 2 years, but it's now in the happy position of not having to do so or just having to cover much smaller losses?

 

That's not a budget. That is income.

[MadAmster]

15 minutes ago, sage said:

That is income you are referring to.

The thread is about our player budget

income way above budget/plan. Income we haven't spent so should still have. We are still limited as to how much we can spend on fees and wages. IMO PW is using kidology when he says there's no money for transfer fees. I've not even mentioned the £3M for Bielik and Knight. We have the money, we just can't spend it. Also, the title of this thread doesn't mention "player", merely "budget". The "extra" from last year plus the money from the 2 sales might be earmarked for something else other than fees and wages.

[sage]

15 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

income way above budget/plan. Income we haven't spent so should still have. We are still limited as to how much we can spend on fees and wages. IMO PW is using kidology when he says there's no money for transfer fees. I've not even mentioned the £3M for Bielik and Knight. We have the money, we just can't spend it. Also, the title of this thread doesn't mention "player", merely "budget". The "extra" from last year plus the money from the 2 sales might be earmarked for something else other than fees and wages.

You've contradicted yourself.

Is it kidology or are we limited on what we can spend?

Thread is about players. Fees and wages. Everyone including yourself knows that.

If we have to pay off debts then fair enough or undergo urgent ground maintenance then fair enough.

However, as fans we see budgets as wages and fees to suggest anything else is disingenuous.

 

[TuffLuff]

I think a quote that has to be remembered is Warne saying Ipswich we’re 12-18 months ahead of us in terms of planning where we want to be. 

My expectation is that if we can get a couple more additions without really spending (and presumably a couple out), then I think we will hold on until January when Warne will make a play for Lapado once its clear how much game time he’s going to get at Ipswich. As Warne has said previously that January is a difficult window and you are probably better using any money at that point rather than now. 

For example, if we have 500k to spend are we better doing it cold now or saving it for when we might need a fresh face or two in January to give us a different option.

[ram59]

58 minutes ago, sage said:

That's not a budget. That is income.

Whilst it is income, it is also virtually all profit and that profit could be available to increase the budget available for running the club.

If DC had budgeted for a £6m loss over the first 2 seasons and was prepared to put in that  £6m to cover those losses, then he could still put in the £6m and use it to build the club quicker, through player signings.

Whichever way you look at, DC will have at least £6m more than he could have reasonably anticipated when he bought the club. That £6m is available, but not will not necessary be used by the club.

[i-Ram]

It really is a pity that all these posters with tremendous insight into the club’s current income, budgets, players wages, etc., didn’t pipe up a bit louder when Mel Morris was clearly taking us down the shitehole a few years back. They would have saved us a lot of heartache, and Clowes any financial bailing out.

[sage]

33 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Whilst it is income, it is also virtually all profit and that profit could be available to increase the budget available for running the club.

If DC had budgeted for a £6m loss over the first 2 seasons and was prepared to put in that  £6m to cover those losses, then he could still put in the £6m and use it to build the club quicker, through player signings.

Whichever way you look at, DC will have at least £6m more than he could have reasonably anticipated when he bought the club. That £6m is available, but not will not necessary be used by the club.

Will the EFL allow us to increase that budget or have they just given us flexibility to spend that budget in a different way?

Alternatively is DC using the increased income to pay off debt or to recoup some of his outlay. Neither of which I have a problem with btw.

It's just those uncertainties along with over optimistic press releases which made me ask the question in the opening post 

 

[ram59]

42 minutes ago, sage said:

Will the EFL allow us to increase that budget or have they just given us flexibility to spend that budget in a different way?

Alternatively is DC using the increased income to pay off debt or to recoup some of his outlay. Neither of which I have a problem with btw.

It's just those uncertainties along with over optimistic press releases which made me ask the question in the opening post 

 

It appears that our budget last season and this season was largely formulated by DC and approved by the EFL with the purpose of making the club sustainable, I would imagine that this figure will have been increased for this coming season, based on last season's actual figures.

Further restrictions regarding transfer and loan fees were imposed by the EFL for last season, but it appears that there has been some relaxation of these restrictions for this coming season.

[sage]

33 minutes ago, ram59 said:

It appears that our budget last season and this season was largely formulated by DC and approved by the EFL with the purpose of making the club sustainable, I would imagine that this figure will have been increased for this coming season, based on last season's actual figures.

Further restrictions regarding transfer and loan fees were imposed by the EFL for last season, but it appears that there has been some relaxation of these restrictions for this coming season.

When you say it appears our budget has increased, how do you judge that?

Media releases?

Income?

Signings, sales and size of squad?

[Eddie]

18 hours ago, alram said:

It’s not playing 4 years regularly nor making a meaningful contribution at that level for teams that are generally bottom half 

That wouldn't win a debate against a yoghurt.

[MadAmster]

6 hours ago, sage said:

You've contradicted yourself.

Is it kidology or are we limited on what we can spend?

Thread is about players. Fees and wages. Everyone including yourself knows that.

If we have to pay off debts then fair enough or undergo urgent ground maintenance then fair enough.

However, as fans we see budgets as wages and fees to suggest anything else is disingenuous.

 

No.

1. He's saying paying a 200K to 300K transfer fee would mean he can only bring one player in. That may be true but based on what I've previously posted, it looks to me like kidology. I might be wrong.

2. Limits on what we can spend. I know that was £8M last year. I don't know if there's a limit this year. What I do know is that we may only pay "moderate fees" so yes, there is a limit of sorts. 2 actually. The moderate fee limit in the business plan agreed to by the EFL and however much David Clowes has set in the budget. Even then, if PW went to him and explained exactly why he wanted to exceed the budget, he might get it

Ergo, 2 separate situations so not a contradiction at all.

[sage]

7 hours ago, MadAmster said:

income way above budget/plan. Income we haven't spent so should still have. We are still limited as to how much we can spend on fees and wages. IMO PW is using kidology when he says there's no money for transfer fees. I've not even mentioned the £3M for Bielik and Knight. We have the money, we just can't spend it. Also, the title of this thread doesn't mention "player", merely "budget". The "extra" from last year plus the money from the 2 sales might be earmarked for something else other than fees and wages.

Which is it? Have we got more money (than say £200k plus wages) and we are being coy or do we have money we can't spend?

your previous answer didn't wash

Edited July 26, 2023 by sage

[Tyler Durden]

Have we agreed on what a budget is yet 

[Foreveram]

2 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Have we agreed on what a budget is yet 

[jono]

On 18/07/2023 at 13:02, sage said:

These are artificial constraints and are a punishment still. I agree we need to be sustainable and not splash silly wages and fees, but spending £1.5m on a 24 yr old on 8k a week is more sustainable than buying three 31 year olds for £500k each on 10k a week. Especially if we have raised money through sales and sold 21k season tickets. 

Imagine if we had unearthed another Bellingham and sold him for £30m and could only spend £500k.  

Everyone would know if he was a Bellingham at 24 and you wouldn’t get him for 1.5 Million and 8k a week. 
 

Where we are now is .. take a risk on a kid at 200k and 4K / week or get an old stager for free (or nominal )  at 8k a week. I don’t think there is much in between ? 
 

This club needs to make a profit in every circumstance. We do not have Saudi owners. 
 

 

[Raich Carter]

20 hours ago, i-Ram said:

It really is a pity that all these posters with tremendous insight into the club’s current income, budgets, players wages, etc., didn’t pipe up a bit louder when Mel Morris was clearly taking us down the shitehole a few years back. They would have saved us a lot of heartache, and Clowes any financial bailing out.

Appreciate what you're saying but I don't think even us self-flagellating Rams fans can blame ourselves for Mel's Mess©. 

You know what, it's not that I necessarily blame MM for taking the risk (well, I kinda do), it's the stupid way he did it that's annoying. Massively over-paying for players, really bad choices of manager, not standing by them and then the way he exited. Anyway, that's been done to death hasn't it.