davenportram Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yep, I'm at 1.5 now your just sitting on the fence........I'll for for a 1.6 myself. The initial spree went tits, belly and arse up so they had to come up with the frugal plan and now either they have saved enough to spend; orthey realise we wont stand any more cheap American bullturds so not a master plan to start with, but not necessarily a reaction to season ticket income dropping. After all the 1000 we are short compared to last season at renewal dead line equate to just £200,000 (using the avergae of £200 per season ticket gleaned from TG meeting with fans posted on here) not really an amount that would hammer budgets when the owners have funded shortfalls several times larger than that in past seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalama Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 To say that this was a masterplan of the Americans all along is quite frankly the most bizarre thing I've ever heard in 4 years of 606, the DET and now this website, you're absolutely bonkers, it's obvious they hadn't/haven't a clue about English football, to say they knew this would happen is akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorksopRam Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 1.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 now your just sitting on the fence........I'll for for a 1.6 myself. The initial spree went tits, belly and arse up so they had to come up with the frugal plan and now either they have saved enough to spend; orthey realise we wont stand any more cheap American bullturds so not a master plan to start with, but not necessarily a reaction to season ticket income dropping. After all the 1000 we are short compared to last season at renewal dead line equate to just £200,000 (using the avergae of £200 per season ticket gleaned from TG meeting with fans posted on here) not really an amount that would hammer budgets when the owners have funded shortfalls several times larger than that in past seasons Ah,but that shortfall arose after the promise of investment and refunds.At least you can do the maths though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 A Up Ramblur, Its never as cut and dried as it seems mate. I suspect most are somewhere inbetween 1 and 2. Ha ha-must admit that after I'd posted and gone out I realised I'd created the famous false dichotomy.I left out a large camp though-the one that says nowt till it appears one camp holds sway,,then says they were right all the time.At the height of the board protests I was amazed at the number who came out on the varius forums saying they'd been warning everyone about 'this' for ages.Don't know where they were all hiding during my early Alamo days on the DET.:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yeah that Glick comment confused me. But £200k lost season ticket income isn't going to be enough to trigger the£2m+ transfer spending we are heading towards. £1m bid for Shakell (Barnsley's figure, £350k up to £450k for Bryson, £300k (maybe £400k depending on the tribunal) for Maguire. Undisclosed fees for Ward, Fielding and Robinson. Not to mentioned the reported £1.25m bid for Waghorn. Of course we don't know who us leaving yet, so can't comment on net spend. Mind you no-one seems to want any if our players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yeah that Glick comment confused me. But £200k lost season ticket income isn't going to be enough to trigger the£2m+ transfer spending we are heading towards. £1m bid for Shakell (Barnsley's figure, £350k up to £450k for Bryson, £300k (maybe £400k depending on the tribunal) for Maguire. Undisclosed fees for Ward, Fielding and Robinson. Not to mentioned the reported £1.25m bid for Waghorn. Of course we don't know who us leaving yet, so can't comment on net spend. Mind you no-one seems to want any if our players. Sorry,but I think you're missing the point Davenport.Without the commitment to investment linked to refunds,S/T renewals might have been a lot lower.I did also mention other factors and personaly believe that the comments on Crains Detroit,in GSE's own backyard,would have caused some pain.From what I remember,there was only one comment in support and the journalist was taken aback by the response. I suspect you'll find that a fair bit of this funding will derive from a wages cull.The one thing that strikes me about our signings/targets is that they're likely (in the main) to be on lowish wages.From a basepoint of £10.4m given at the backend of the season before last,the following has happened (I may well have missed some):- OUTS:- Hendrie,Teale,MacEverly,Connolly,Price,Pringle,Hulse,Commons,Sav,Porter INS:- Martin,Brayford,Bailey,Roberts,Cywka,Ward,Fielding,Robinson,Tyson,Bryson,Maguire. Whilst there are obviously some more incomings in the offing,there could well be some highish wage outgoings as well. If the proposed regulations come in at 60% ,then our allowance (based on £18m turnover) would be £10.8m.I suspect we'll be well below this come 31 August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkRam Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 To be fair when I said about the Tom glick 'master plan' as is being quoted it was tongue in cheek that this COULD benefit us due to the cost cutting that we have been through. But hey ho **** on everyone's sunny day, ill keep smiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Forgot Ben Davies within my "ins". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Sorry,but I think you're missing the point Davenport.Without the commitment to investment linked to refunds,S/T renewals might have been a lot lower.I did also mention other factors and personaly believe that the comments on Crains Detroit,in GSE's own backyard,would have caused some pain.From what I remember,there was only one comment in support and the journalist was taken aback by the response. I suspect you'll find that a fair bit of this funding will derive from a wages cull.The one thing that strikes me about our signings/targets is that they're likely (in the main) to be on lowish wages.From a basepoint of £10.4m given at the backend of the season before last,the following has happened (I may well have missed some):- OUTS:- Hendrie,Teale,MacEverly,Connolly,Price,Pringle,Hulse,Commons,Sav,Porter INS:- Martin,Brayford,Bailey,Roberts,Cywka,Ward,Fielding,Robinson,Tyson,Bryson,Maguire. Whilst there are obviously some more incomings in the offing,there could well be some highish wage outgoings as well. If the proposed regulations come in at 60% ,then our allowance (based on £18m turnover) would be £10.8m.I suspect we'll be well below this come 31 August. Wasnt the shortfall £8m or am I confusing figures. If Shackell and Waghorn join for the reported bids we will have spent over £3m. If that is the saving wages then the shortfall would reduce to £5m, but £3m will have been spent on players. Net result same amount coming in from the owners, but with money spent on players. Wouldn't this equate to saving enough to fund player investment. Personally I'm happy they have finally spent a decent amount, and are not having to subsidise the club as much on wages. Isn't thus heading towards the 'break even model' discussed by the football league. I agree that the comments on the American article probably had more impact than season ticket sales, and the protests may have helped a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 We have quite a bit more this season from Mr Murdoch do we not ?, total from league up to nearly £4ml I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Glick has defiantly outplayed Swansea, Norwich, QPR, west brom, etc. They should have balanced the books like us instead of getting promoted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Wasnt the shortfall £8m or am I confusing figures. If Shackell and Waghorn join for the reported bids we will have spent over £3m. If that is the saving wages then the shortfall would reduce to £5m, but £3m will have been spent on players. Net result same amount coming in from the owners, but with money spent on players. Wouldn't this equate to saving enough to fund player investment. Personally I'm happy they have finally spent a decent amount, and are not having to subsidise the club as much on wages. Isn't thus heading towards the 'break even model' discussed by the football league. I agree that the comments on the American article probably had more impact than season ticket sales, and the protests may have helped a little. Apologies for the delay in replying-health not great in recent weeks,Think you may be confused between headline profit/loss and operating cash generated (after stripping out paper,non cash transactions).09/10 actually threw up £1.437m of operating cash and even the previous year £195k,despite a thumping headline loss.The problem is that we borrowed against the second chute payment,just as we had against the first.Now many blame the LOG for this,but ,as I've pointed out before, GSE put in zero new investment in the year to 30/6/08,yet spent heavily in Jan 08. Cash spent here could have filled the hole in the first chute payment.It's probably a little known fact,but the net debt at 30/6/08 is shown at £21.811m.Cash increased from £4.160m at the start of the year to £7.899m at the end,and the overdraft reduced from £6.107m to £894k -a combined upward movement in overall cash (cash and overdraft combined) of £8.952m.If you were to add the Jan 08 spending to this,then the £10.4m LOG loan is more than covered,as I repeat again that GSE put in nothing,according to the accounts. Tracing the story forwards,GSE borrowed against the second chute payment (one could argue as a result of the Jan 08 activity)-£9m+ from Investec Bank.Later in the year,they appear to have repaid some debt.The reason that 08/09 and 09/10 both show operating cash generated is that the chute payments are included in the calculations (as income) intact.Therefore,in 09/10 GSE weren't really covering operating losses,but a hole in the chute payment. Glick has in the past said that a wage bill (players) of £10m is sustainable.Based on turnover of £18m,the League's sustainability figure of 60% gives £10.8m for us,and the change to 55% wef next season would mean £9.9m-almost spot on the money.If we shed all the players I expect this window,then I could well see our bill coming in at £8m.A quick calculation shows that £8m would yield a squad of 20 players at an average of £7k per week (taking account of employer's NIC).I can see us having many less than £7k,and few higher,so the 20 players could probably be increased somewhat. If £10m were sustainable,then £8m would yield a £2m surplus-not just next season,but ongoing.Hence,given that most transfers are based on instalments,it's not inconceivable that this £2m surplus could finance £4m worth of signings (based on 2 equal instalments).I've nothing against this if it comes off-I'd even take my hat off to them,but my only concern is that it severely restricts the size of the pond in which the manager fishes. One last point,it's great to get players' wages in line (and beyond),but everything else has to fall in line to achieve sustainability.I believe that the current arrangements cap overall wages at 75% (which I presume now falls to 70%),which gives 15% for other wages.Therefore under the new arrangements,our cap would be £9.9m for players,£2.7m for other wages (though the 2 can be taken in combination) and £5.4m to cover other expenses, to achieve sustainability .I fear for the other 2 elements. Overall operating expenses are split between "direct operating expenses" (mostly players' wages) and "admin expenses" (predominantly the 'suits' salaries and their support staffs,plus their office expenses).In 09/10 this latter expense came in at £8.532m (compared to £5.261m when we were last in the championship).If you were to take the £9.9m generated by 55% and add this £8.532m,then you're already over the £18m turnover with nothing to cover other substantial direct operating costs.So unless this has been brought back more to LOG levels,then players' wages would suffer at the expense of admin expenses to attain sustainability.If you were to strip out tv revenues from the turnovers for 09/10 and 06/07,then the increase is £1.2m (down to increased sponsorship income).A £3m rise in admin expenses rather takes the gloss off this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 We have quite a bit more this season from Mr Murdoch do we not ?, total from league up to nearly £4ml I believe I believe we already had this last season,and that it forms part of the £18m turnover quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 The planned introduction of financial fair play rules for the Football League from next season has caused some angst for at least one of the clubs chasing promotion from the Championship. Indeed so annoyed are West Ham United that they are understood to be considering taking the matter to judicial review. Their argument, according to one club insider, is that the rules are not being properly introduced and will penalise those who are ambitious and want to spend. In practice, West Ham claim, it means that clubs won’t be able to buy players, meaning that prices will fall and the gap between the Premier League and the lower leagues will be even greater. The Football League clubs agreed in principle, at their annual meeting in Cyprus last summer, to introduce financial fair play from the 2012-13 season. This means that Championship clubs will only be allowed to spend what they earn while League One and Two clubs will not be permitted to spend more than 55 per cent of their turnover on player wages. Clubs who transgress are likely to be handed a transfer ban as a first sanction with possible points deductions for major offenders. The vote was hailed by the Football League, who are concerned that debt among the 72 clubs totals more than £700 million, but it has annoyed some of their members. West Ham were relegated from the Premier League last May and did not take part in the vote, and are planning on taking legal action because they claim the rules are being brought in without adequate notice. West Ham took on significant overheads last summer, signing the likes of Kevin Nolan in the hope of pushing for promotion and while they are on course to go up, if they do miss out they could act. At the very least it is understood they want the rules to be delayed or phased in over the next two to three years so the clubs are given time to adjust. The Football League could equally argue that clubs, who voted for the measure, should not be encouraged to overspend. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/8974105/West-Ham-considering-legal-moves-against-Football-Leagues-plans-for-financial-fair-play-rules.html]http://www.telegraph...play-rules.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Well what a surprise West Ham moaning. They are getting parachute payments. They new at the start of the season the rules were coming in so why spend money they can't afford. *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I don't understand why the gap between the championship and the premiership will get bigger, yes, I agree that the premiership will spend more on players than the championship, but when all said and done it will be the same players available for selection, therefore the gap will be the same.. but that is my opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 This'll last as long as 7 subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Better news If a relegated team goes straight back up, the parachute payments get shared out to us lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.