Martyn Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 If your interpretation were correct,then based on an £18m turnover,FFP would allocate a staggering £7.2m for non pay related overheads.Now I'm well aware that costs aren't insignificant,but £7.2m? Do me a favour,that's a staggering amount of money. Yes it is! I wasn't claiming it was right, I just haven't assumed it was only player wages unless the regs actually state that. Can anyone find them anywhere? They seem not to be publicly available anywhere??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Yes it is! I wasn't claiming it was right, I just haven't assumed it was only player wages unless the regs actually state that. Can anyone find them anywhere? They seem not to be publicly available anywhere??? We won't find the actual regs as they haven't yet been finalised (as far as we know).I'm sure I've heard /seen players' wages mentioned in relation to this,but can't find a link,so will be happy to consider both possibilities.There does however appear to have been some lazy journalism in the past on this kind of issue.Some said that League 1 clubs were expected to follow the route of L2 and cap wages at 60%.They should have said "players' wages" as there is a separate cap for overall wages. Should the proposed guidelines for us relate to players' wages,then we appear to be steaming due S of the 'allocation'.If this were being done in an attempt to generate transfer funds,then fair enough (well,that depends on whether you think the strategy can work). On the other hand,should guidelines relate to total wages,players' wages may be driven down to facilitate what appear to be inordinately high non players' wages,which appear to have been running at around the £6m mark (by deduction).I hear Glick telling us that we have to cull the players' wage bill,but I've never heard him say anything about trimming other areas.Assuming that players' wages figures given in the DET are accurate (which in turn enables us to work out other wages),then it would obviously be a ridiculous situation if non players' wages hadn't been culled..If they'd stayed at the same level,then it would only leave £4.8m for players' wages,based on 60% of turnover for total wages,on turnover of £18m. When the 11/12 accounts come out in a year's time they may quote £10m/£11m for total wages and this might appear reasonable and competitive under FFP.However,due to Glick's sudden reluctance to disclose players' wages we'll never know how much relates to this-we might easily be uncompetitive where it really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 We won't find the actual regs as they haven't yet been finalised (as far as we know). I'm sure I've heard /seen players' wages mentioned in relation to this,but can't find a link,so will be happy to consider both possibilities.There does however appear to have been some lazy journalism in the past on this kind of issue.Some said that League 1 clubs were expected to follow the route of L2 and cap wages at 60%.They should have said "players' wages" as there is a separate cap for overall wages. You'd have thought the current proposals would have been made public though. I found an article about the L1/L2 caps that said the same, and they say the Champ's will be derived from that so I guess they mean player wages but as they also have total wage limits who knows?! Plus, the L1/L2 regs state they are derived from the UEFA model - which uses the phrase "wages" (no "player") but defines that as being players + the management team of the business, medical, security all senior football teams (it excludes youth)! The more I read the more the waters muddy. Thin I'm just gonna leave it, as it's all pretty irrelevant until it's finalised, implemented and enforced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 It's like I said Bris, the only people who are spouting this are those either scaremongering to get people on side with the plan, or those who deserve a lobotomy. Or maybe businessmen who know football club owners and investors, have close relationships with Deloittes and understand that the current situation is unsustainable. Just a guess but I would listen to those close to football finance who are extremely worried about the situation. Oh just for good measure, let's throw in the £1.15m TV revenue cut to Championship clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 We won't find the actual regs as they haven't yet been finalised (as far as we know).I'm sure I've heard /seen players' wages mentioned in relation to this,but can't find a link,so will be happy to consider both possibilities.There does however appear to have been some lazy journalism in the past on this kind of issue.Some said that League 1 clubs were expected to follow the route of L2 and cap wages at 60%.They should have said "players' wages" as there is a separate cap for overall wages. Should the proposed guidelines for us relate to players' wages,then we appear to be steaming due S of the 'allocation'.If this were being done in an attempt to generate transfer funds,then fair enough (well,that depends on whether you think the strategy can work). On the other hand,should guidelines relate to total wages,players' wages may be driven down to facilitate what appear to be inordinately high non players' wages,which appear to have been running at around the £6m mark (by deduction).I hear Glick telling us that we have to cull the players' wage bill,but I've never heard him say anything about trimming other areas.Assuming that players' wages figures given in the DET are accurate (which in turn enables us to work out other wages),then it would obviously be a ridiculous situation if non players' wages hadn't been culled..If they'd stayed at the same level,then it would only leave £4.8m for players' wages,based on 60% of turnover for total wages,on turnover of £18m. When the 11/12 accounts come out in a year's time they may quote £10m/£11m for total wages and this might appear reasonable and competitive under FFP.However,due to Glick's sudden reluctance to disclose players' wages we'll never know how much relates to this-we might easily be uncompetitive where it really matters. The structure is to be ratified in the next couple of weeks - announcement due soon, or so word has it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Port Vale - Going to administration just to keep afloat Vale about to pop... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17230886 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Or maybe businessmen who know football club owners and investors, have close relationships with Deloittes and understand that the current situation is unsustainable. Just a guess but I would listen to those close to football finance who are extremely worried about the situation. Oh just for good measure, let's throw in the £1.15m TV revenue cut to Championship clubs. I've seen this figure given as c£0.75m,Donny. It should also be pointed out that any season there may be full/partial offsets if relegated teams go straight back up, due to redistribution of chute payments (this year W.Ham/Blackpool could do the honours).What I've never seen mentioned in this regard is what happens if teams in receipt of 2nd or 3rd year chute payments go up,as they too would then have 'unclaimed' payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Or maybe businessmen who know football club owners and investors, have close relationships with Deloittes and understand that the current situation is unsustainable. Just a guess but I would listen to those close to football finance who are extremely worried about the situation. Oh just for good measure, let's throw in the £1.15m TV revenue cut to Championship clubs. The current situation is unsustainable where have I doubted that? as your original premise was incorrect the rest of your post is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 You'd have thought the current proposals would have been made public though. I found an article about the L1/L2 caps that said the same, and they say the Champ's will be derived from that so I guess they mean player wages but as they also have total wage limits who knows?! Plus, the L1/L2 regs state they are derived from the UEFA model - which uses the phrase "wages" (no "player") but defines that as being players + the management team of the business, medical, security all senior football teams (it excludes youth)! The more I read the more the waters muddy. Thin I'm just gonna leave it, as it's all pretty irrelevant until it's finalised, implemented and enforced! As the L2 regs gave 60% for players and (I think) 75% for total wages,it always seemed reasonable to me that our 60% would be for players.If L2 were to be allocated 25% for non wage issues (on much smaller turnovers),then 40% of much higher turnovers for championship clubs would be a bit OTT.Whilst one can appreciate that bigger clubs carry higher overheads,there are a few areas that have fairly common ground (eg pitch maintenance,floodlighting-although bigger clubs may have more powerful lights.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 What I've never seen mentioned in this regard is what happens if teams in receipt of 2nd or 3rd year chute payments go up,as they too would then have 'unclaimed' payments. I see no reason to believe that any unclaimed payments won't continue to get split, be it year 1, 2 or 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I see no reason to believe that any unclaimed payments won't continue to get split, be it year 1, 2 or 3. Ah,I see the FFP masterplan now.All those in receipt of chute payments are to go bust (along with several others) and we're going to scoop up all the chute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 It's very noticeable that the DET articles that give details of the players' wage bills at varying times are given outside quotation marks,whilst much of the blurb appears inside same,however an old favourite is interesting:- [url=http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/finances-fine-health/story-11596332-detail/story.html]http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/finances-fine-health/story-11596332-detail/story.html DET pieces have given 08/09 at £15.5m,09/10 at £10.5m and 10/11 at just over £9m as at end of March 11.If you look down this article,you'll see that the first mention of £15m is given outside quotation marks,however if you scroll down you'll then see it within same.As the accounts show that total wages for 08/09 were c£6m above this figure,then it's quite clear that Appleby is referring to players' wages (it also confirms 'other' wages at £6m for that year,by deduction).Therefore the £15.5m in the DET is roughly validated,furthermore Appleby's claim that £10m was affordable does little to invalidate the £10.5m DET claim for 09/10. I remember Glick saying on RD that 10/11 fluctuated between £9m and £10m over the year.Given that big hitters like Hulse and Commons left during the year,it wouldn't be surprising if the final fluctuation turned out to be the "just over £9m" given in the DET. Going back to Appleby's statement that c£10m was affordable (which one would surely take as 'sustainable'),it's interesting to note that this would equate to c60% of normal turnover.The question then is "why is this being driven relentlessly downwards?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ramblur, I was advised the nett reduction was £1.15m approx, this would be reduced by any offset payments as a result of redistribution of parachute payments. Source was from a member of the football audit section at Deloittes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ramblur, I was advised the nett reduction was £1.15m approx, this would be reduced by any offset payments as a result of redistribution of parachute payments. Source was from a member of the football audit section at Deloittes. Trumps my source,Donny,SwissRambler gave it at £766k (apparently as calculated by the Ipswich CEO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ah,I see the FFP masterplan now.All those in receipt of chute payments are to go bust (along with several others) and we're going to scoop up all the chute payments. At the rate things are going it may be a nice little windfall ;-) DET pieces have given 08/09 at £15.5m, 09/10 at £10.5m and 10/11 at just over £9m as at end of March 11. I worked out the same figures, I also found £23m for 07/08. Going back to Appleby's statement that c£10m was affordable (which one would surely take as 'sustainable'),it's interesting to note that this would equate to c60% of normal turnover.The question then is "why is this being driven relentlessly downwards?". I guess we won't know until following accounts come out and we see it drop further, unless when he has said that wages we're in a "bump" due to other loans & short-term deals at the time? On another note - what is this reduction we're talking about? The lower TV deal from 2012/13? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 At the rate things are going it may be a nice little windfall ;-) I worked out the same figures, I also found £23m for 07/08. I guess we won't know until following accounts come out and we see it drop further, unless when he has said that wages we're in a "bump" due to other loans & short-term deals at the time? On another note - what is this reduction we're talking about? The lower TV deal from 2012/13? Yes to the last point.The £23m 07/08 figure implies other wages of £3m (far lower than the ensuing 2 years)-a point I've made in the past. Not sure I understand your penultimate point.Appleby appeared to be saying that c£10m for players' wages was an affordable target.This was followed by comments such as 'we need to get wages below £10m' (not £9m,£8m,£7m etc) which seemed to ramble on up to the point when Glick suddenly refused to talk about players' wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.