More restricted this year

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

40 minutes ago, sage said:

Other than the 3 teams who just came down, I wonder who else is still getting parachute payments in the Championship next year 

Must be a few.  Possibly time to start saying you can have the money but have to have a legacy of starting on minus points for every X amount of million you take.  If not, Ipswich will be very much the exception.   Bournemouth had a  wage bill of about 71 million and 60 million quid of forwards last time around with a 9k attendance.  It's gone crazy. 

[Igorwasking]

Whether you say restricted or not as competitive - I think we can all agree (surely?!) that we have a bigger disadvantage fiscally this season? Last season, even with the EFL restrictions, we had a top two wage budget. This year, we will not have that.

Listening to a pod cast with Kieran Maguire yesterday - he said the average annual wage bill in L1 was £17m, the average is the Champ a staggering £31m. That’s nearly double. And don’t get me started on the average £83k p/w for Prem players. Mind boggling. 

Getting to the Prem really will be a minor miracle. Staying possibly an even bigger one.

[G STAR RAM]

On 19/05/2024 at 21:59, The Key Club King said:

It does worry me looking at the table about who we can compete with financially. There are some very well-funded teams just hanging around lower mid-table.

It is obviously up to Clowes what he choses to put in to the club - he has earned the right to pretty much do as he wants really. The last time we were in the bottom 6 or 8 in terms of budget is when GSE and Clough were in charge and that ended in protests as they were "only" covering £2 or £3 million pounds of losses each year. 

From memory we were losing £7m/£8m per year at the end of GSEs tenure.

[Tamworthram]

25 minutes ago, Igorwasking said:

Whether you say restricted or not as competitive - I think we can all agree (surely?!) that we have a bigger disadvantage fiscally this season? Last season, even with the EFL restrictions, we had a top two wage budget. This year, we will not have that.

Listening to a pod cast with Kieran Maguire yesterday - he said the average annual wage bill in L1 was £17m, the average is the Champ a staggering £31m. That’s nearly double. And don’t get me started on the average £83k p/w for Prem players. Mind boggling. 

Getting to the Prem really will be a minor miracle. Staying possibly an even bigger one.

I don’t know where KM gets his figures from or if they’re any more or less accurate than the following which shows how the wages at the parachute payments clubs distorts the average. These estimates seem to suggest that the median is somewhere around £13m. (Note, I’m not vouching for these figures, just sharing what I found).
 

It’s a sad reflection of the impact the parachute payments have on the competitiveness of the Championship that most year (I guess as I’ve not checked) only 1 non parachute club is likely to get promoted.

Here’s how the Championship annual wages for the upcoming break down for the upcoming 2023-24 campaign. The numbers are via Capology and are only estimates.

1. Leicester City – £60,190,000
2. Southampton – £40,014,000
3. Leeds United – £39,513,000
4. Norwich City – £24,196,000
5. West Bromwich Albion – £23,060,000
6. Cardiff City – £19,444,000
7. Stoke City – £18,340,000
8. Watford – £14,952,000
9. Sheffield Wednesday – £14,584,000
10. Middlesbrough – £13,582,000
11. Birmingham City – £13,228,000
12. Bristol City – £12,894,000
13. Hull City – £12,333,200
14. Swansea City – £12,276,000
15. Queens Park Rangers – £12,020,000
16. Ipswich Town – £11,378,000
17. Preston North End – £10,942,200
18. Coventry City – £10,008,000
19. Millwall – £9,856,000
20. Huddersfield Town – £9,258,000
21. Sunderland – £9,150,000
22. Blackburn Rovers – £7,678,000
23. Rotherham United – £6,674,000
24. Plymouth Argyle – £6,060,000

[jono]

On 19/05/2024 at 15:38, sage said:

That's the third similar comment this afternoon. Not seen anyone being too silly on the expectations thread.

 

But we both know that 2 losses in a row and the pitchforks will be out. 

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, jono said:

But we both know that 2 losses in a row and the pitchforks will be out. 

How many losses will you accept?

[jono]

12 hours ago, Rich3478 said:

Getting bored of the restrictions talk, we almost make excuses for ourselves before a ball is kicked.

every team is trying to sign good players, the parachute teams hard to compete with. But the relegated three next season far weaker than this year.

we’ve just been a big fish as such in league one, despite restrictions had biggest budget. Now we enter a more level playing field.

We don’t enter a more level playing field, we are just further down the slope. There have always been rich/bigger clubs in every league. The issue is the scale of the gap, or profile of the ever present incline. There is an artificial barrier that distorts competition. 
 

got to stop parachute payments, player contracts should have relegation clauses as standard and clubs wage bills need to be linked to something - turnover or some measurable value that can’t be distorted by dodgy sponsorship deals. Or perhaps parachute money should be split between all clubs ? There just has to be a more equitable way.

[Foreveram]

29 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How many losses will you accept?

Before doing what.

[jono]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

How many losses will you accept?

Difficult to be precise. It would depend on our league position at the time, the stage of the season, past recent results, how we have been playing across a number of matches, who the opposition were. 
it would be a rational decision, not knee jerk, patience has virtues as last season showed. It would certainly not come from existing beliefs or any particular preset agenda.

[Animal is a Ram]

10 hours ago, sage said:

Other than the 3 teams who just came down, I wonder who else is still getting parachute payments in the Championship next year 

Next season will be the last for Watford and Norwich, and then depending on who loses in the PO final, Leeds or Southampton.

 

[jimtastic56]

11 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Next season will be the last for Watford and Norwich, and then depending on who loses in the PO final, Leeds or Southampton.

 

Leeds or Southampton going up will mean around £150 mill in unused Parachute payments being “Divi’d Up” between Prem teams this Summer .

Chicken feed to put in the loose change jar . If we believe the metric that Budget =Position , then Oxford will be the Whipping boys next season . Easy 6 points for sure ?

[ram59]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t know where KM gets his figures from or if they’re any more or less accurate than the following which shows how the wages at the parachute payments clubs distorts the average. These estimates seem to suggest that the median is somewhere around £13m. (Note, I’m not vouching for these figures, just sharing what I found).
 

It’s a sad reflection of the impact the parachute payments have on the competitiveness of the Championship that most year (I guess as I’ve not checked) only 1 non parachute club is likely to get promoted.

Here’s how the Championship annual wages for the upcoming break down for the upcoming 2023-24 campaign. The numbers are via Capology and are only estimates.

1. Leicester City – £60,190,000
2. Southampton – £40,014,000
3. Leeds United – £39,513,000
4. Norwich City – £24,196,000
5. West Bromwich Albion – £23,060,000
6. Cardiff City – £19,444,000
7. Stoke City – £18,340,000
8. Watford – £14,952,000
9. Sheffield Wednesday – £14,584,000
10. Middlesbrough – £13,582,000
11. Birmingham City – £13,228,000
12. Bristol City – £12,894,000
13. Hull City – £12,333,200
14. Swansea City – £12,276,000
15. Queens Park Rangers – £12,020,000
16. Ipswich Town – £11,378,000
17. Preston North End – £10,942,200
18. Coventry City – £10,008,000
19. Millwall – £9,856,000
20. Huddersfield Town – £9,258,000
21. Sunderland – £9,150,000
22. Blackburn Rovers – £7,678,000
23. Rotherham United – £6,674,000
24. Plymouth Argyle – £6,060,000

These figures seem quite low when looking a teams accounts from 22/23, maybe they are restricted to first team squad only? 

Take Sunderland for example, on their accounts the total wage bill for the club was £25m which is lot more than the £9m listed and that was for a previous season, which is now likely to be higher. Likewise with Bristol City and a number of other clubs.

On a side note, I believe that Derby and all of the other clubs will benefit from a share out of Leicester's and Southampton's or Leeds' parachute payments for next season. This sum will be quite substantial, approaching £100m, but I don't whether it is shared throughout the EFL.

[ram59]

3 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Leeds or Southampton going up will mean around £150 mill in unused Parachute payments being “Divi’d Up” between Prem teams this Summer .

Chicken feed to put in the loose change jar . If we believe the metric that Budget =Position , then Oxford will be the Whipping boys next season . Easy 6 points for sure ?

I thought that the money went to EFL clubs?

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Foreveram said:

Before doing what.

What jono suggested in his post previous.

[RoyMac5]

47 minutes ago, jono said:

Difficult to be precise. It would depend on our league position at the time, the stage of the season, past recent results, how we have been playing across a number of matches, who the opposition were. 
it would be a rational decision, not knee jerk, patience has virtues as last season showed. It would certainly not come from existing beliefs or any particular preset agenda.

Ah, no emotions involved at all. Lucky you. Some fans are less logical in their reactions than others.

Edited May 21 by RoyMac5

[jono]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Ah, no emotions involved at all. Lucky you. Some fans are less logical in their reactions than others.

Emotions in the moment after a poor game .. yes. Emotions related to precipitously sacking a manager no. That’s a decision that needs to be sat down and talked about with thought and analysis 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

These figures seem quite low when looking a teams accounts from 22/23, maybe they are restricted to first team squad only? 

Take Sunderland for example, on their accounts the total wage bill for the club was £25m which is lot more than the £9m listed and that was for a previous season, which is now likely to be higher. Likewise with Bristol City and a number of other clubs.

On a side note, I believe that Derby and all of the other clubs will benefit from a share out of Leicester's and Southampton's or Leeds' parachute payments for next season. This sum will be quite substantial, approaching £100m, but I don't whether it is shared throughout the EFL.

Like I said, I can’t vouch for the figures and the article itself says they are only estimates.

Regarding Sunderland, their accounts state that they employed 222 “administration” staff rising to 587 on match days. That’s a lot of people and May account for some for the difference but it’s hard to see how they get up to £25m. Ignoring the 587 for now, the average wage of the would need to be c£72k. There are bound to be a few big earners but I would imagine most are earning much less.

Regardless, the £31m seems a tad high and, even if correct, will be distorted by the parachute payment clubs.

[Srg]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

These figures seem quite low when looking a teams accounts from 22/23, maybe they are restricted to first team squad only? 

Take Sunderland for example, on their accounts the total wage bill for the club was £25m which is lot more than the £9m listed and that was for a previous season, which is now likely to be higher. Likewise with Bristol City and a number of other clubs.

On a side note, I believe that Derby and all of the other clubs will benefit from a share out of Leicester's and Southampton's or Leeds' parachute payments for next season. This sum will be quite substantial, approaching £100m, but I don't whether it is shared throughout the EFL.

I read something that the parachute payments actually just get distributed within the premier league - unsurprisingly. Don’t know how true that is though. 

[sage]

2 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Next season will be the last for Watford and Norwich, and then depending on who loses in the PO final, Leeds or Southampton.

 

So 6.  Interesting. Out of those four, 3 finished top 6. 

 

[May Contain Nuts]

A lot depends on how Clowes / Pearce actually define sustainability, while still putting out the message that we're not there just to make up the numbers.

The agreed business plan last season sounded pretty restrictive written down but in reality was about as effective as putting a paper muzzle on an XL Bully. Even at around 42% wages to turnover we managed to carry what was almost certainly the highest (player) wage bill in the league, to have a squad deep enough that every time we had some injuries there was always a rolling cast of returness of a similar standing to fill the void. The one time we didn't have a ready-made replacement on the books (when Collins got injured) we were able to sort it by almost immediately bringing in a free agent most other teams wouldn't have been able to offer a contract to), and we were able to pretty much waste £200-300k on an injured winger who we'd almost certainly have had for free in the summer anyway!

To what degree that 42% was David Clowes idea of sustainability and his knowledge of the advantage even that  gave us over most other L1 teams, and how much it was based on what the EFL would accept we don't know. We do know that UEFA believe 70% to be the target but we also know that Championship clubs pretty much entirely disregard that figure with the majority going well above that - in the Rowett season we were around 130% for a 6th place finish. I don't think Championship teams particularly have curtaled their spending since?

We may not be under enforced restrictions but self-imposed lmits still count. I'd certainly not say that the idea we may be more restricted this season that last is a fallacy it's just a matter of whether you're a stickler for certain definitions of certain words. This/last season we only really had to worry about ourselves and at worst we had 3-4 teams willing to pay more for individual players. In the Championship we're likely to be competing for players with teams, in double figures, willing to risk their sustainability to best us.

If we're going to dovert towards paying fees more often it will come at a cost of being able to get the best free agents. There's always a trade-off.

I'm not clued in on how much extra revenue being in the Championship gives us or what level 'our' 70% would put us at compared to others and I don't know how much above or below that figure Clowes is willing to go - as per the opening line.

I fear that to meet any expectation above maybe 18th we may struggle to fulfil the remit of being sustainable?

Edited May 21 by May Contain Nuts