| Wages to turnover. 16:49 - Apr 1 with 3236 views | darkhorse28 |
Ashton spent like a drunken sailor didn’t he, players and staff.
£77 million wages. Established premier league sides like Bournemouth and Brentford spend £50 to £60 million…, even Brighton, pushing for Europe and swimming in revenue from player development elopement are in the £60’s.
If we’d stayed up. Fair play, a huge gamble, a risk with the clubs entire future, but the gambkepaid off.
It was like playing roulette with the clubs entire future. And the risk was always unbalanced.., we have to service that with EFL revenue, and if the parachute money go’s entirely we’ll be looking at 150% wages to turnover, which is obviously very bleak.
I just never got the Ashton love in, he takes huge risks, all for his own ego, knowing if the clubs long term future is in the bin, he won’t be here, he’s shown little regard for our long term future and sustainability.
Under Evans 100% wage to turnover wasn’t sustainable, Gamechanger have reduced risk and equity, because they could see this coming.
The McKenna dynamic, making it financially impossible for him to stay in the EFL beyond one season if we don’t go up, also an un balanced approach to risk.
There’s a theme.
Ashton enjoys risk, where there’s potential for HIM to benefit and where he won’t be here for the downside so doesn’t care.
The owners really should have shown more oversight.
We spent our future last season, without promotion, we have some really tough decisions to make.
We have a lot of players and staff on wages that other clubs simply won’t be able to afford, even if they want to…, we weren’t plucky Ipswich on a journey when we spent so much - we were one of the biggest clubs in Europe spend wise.
I wish we’d gone the sustainable route - KM on performance related pay, with huge bonuses but tied to our success, and more realistic player budgets.
If we’d don’t that, we’d still be building this year and next - we’d boss this division all day long, with young hungry players.
Now we’re in serious trouble in the EFL, we have to get close to 100% at least, and this summer and next are going to be through that prism. McKenna has to go, and so do a couple of big players, and may more next year.
It’s not an elite legacy from Mark.
Not when so many well run premier league clubs generate £150 million a year turnover from £50 million in wages.
THAT is the metric owners will judge Mark on, politics aside, he been a woeful CEO and even worse Chairman for 18 months or more, ever since he had money.
It’s not that he’s not elite. He’s not even average at the current levels…, every CEO in the championship is getting MORE from LESS. |  | | |  |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:02 - Apr 1 with 2358 views | tractorboy1978 |
Brentford's wages in the last accounts were £131m. I can't be bothered to check the rest. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:05 - Apr 1 with 2340 views | grow_our_own |
100% this. I don't think we'd mind the spending if there was decent return on investment. But I make it over 70m of major signings in the past 19 months who cannot get into the first team or who've been banished on loan. This is Ashton's player research & negotiating. We won't miss him. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:10 - Apr 1 with 2313 views | portmanking |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:02 - Apr 1 by tractorboy1978 |
Brentford's wages in the last accounts were £131m. I can't be bothered to check the rest. |
Pathetic, isn't it? He's made a huge error in judgment, but the accounts look pretty healthy, if you ask me. To turn a profit and have £32m of FFP headroom is hugely encouraging. That headroom may even be the difference next season (if we don't get promoted), allowing us to compete just as strongly in terms of fees/wages with the newest parachute clubs. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:13 - Apr 1 with 2283 views | Tambu |
If he didn't sign the players you thought he'd should you'd be bitching about that too. Put yourself forward to do the job. |  |
| I love ITFC, but a large number of the fans are bellends |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:17 - Apr 1 with 2264 views | algy |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:02 - Apr 1 by tractorboy1978 |
Brentford's wages in the last accounts were £131m. I can't be bothered to check the rest. |
With 4 times as many wins including 9 times as many home wins Brentford got far better value for their money than MA & KM did. | |
| Never forget that on 7th. April 2021, for ITFC, the Game Changed. |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:20 - Apr 1 with 2242 views | portmanking |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:17 - Apr 1 by algy |
With 4 times as many wins including 9 times as many home wins Brentford got far better value for their money than MA & KM did. |
You can't be serious? It really isn't that black and white, is it?
Brentford signed players from a position of strength as an established PL side. We tried hard to upgrade areas of our squad as much as possible, but it was always going to be a huge jump after back-to-back promotions.
Context is everything. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:22 - Apr 1 with 2229 views | longtimefan |
Yet strangely we made a £4M profit! We could be Chelsea who just announced a new Premier League record loss of £262M including £65M spent on agents fees - unbelievable | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:26 - Apr 1 with 2191 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
I don't usually respond to your trolling anymore, but when you just continue to make us such sh1t stats, it needs correcting. Our wage bill would have been one of, if not the lowest, in the PL last season.
Let's take Brentford. Twice what you claim at £113M, £131M with other remuneration costs accounted for. Just check the accounts. You're like a rabid dog with all these fanciful claims you make.
 | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Wages to turnover. on 17:32 - Apr 1 with 2136 views | ReusersTown |
I mean I know the Ashton stuff is a dream for you at the moment, but it does you no favors with such exaggeration, though I appreciate that is your usual line of attack. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:32 - Apr 1 with 2133 views | Illinoisblue |
Hello Tractor Guy, last time I read your inane ramble it was on FB and you were slagging off the “idiots on TWTD”. Why are you here? |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:39 - Apr 1 with 2083 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
Just picked up on this gem too.
"Not when so many well run premier league clubs generate £150 million a year turnover from £50 million in wages."
Brentford wages are 76% of turnover. As stated in their accounts. Not 33% of turnover. And they made a £20M loss. Not really the poster child you try to make out.
I know you won't respond, as it's your MO - drop false claims, and don't engage when your challenged with facts. I don't know what you do for a living, but I'd hate to employ someone with your level of dishonesty and cowardice. You must be a nightmare. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:41 - Apr 1 with 2066 views | Churchman |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:26 - Apr 1 by SuffolkPunchFC |
I don't usually respond to your trolling anymore, but when you just continue to make us such sh1t stats, it needs correcting. Our wage bill would have been one of, if not the lowest, in the PL last season.
Let's take Brentford. Twice what you claim at £113M, £131M with other remuneration costs accounted for. Just check the accounts. You're like a rabid dog with all these fanciful claims you make.
|
You are right to correct him, but the same old tedium will keep appearing.
Since the news of Reform last week, OPs posts have tumbled onto this forum in abundance. Before that, whether he slithered out from under his rock depended on the result. Having the time of his life - and reading them is a waste of life.
I hate using the Div list and usually resist it because it destroys the flow of a thread, but needs must. |  | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:43 - Apr 1 with 2051 views | Blueschev |
To make a £4 million profit, given the outlay, seems pretty good in the insane world that is football finances. I'm furious at the club right now, but not really for this. Not at all for this, in fact. |  | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:47 - Apr 1 with 2018 views | MrTown |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:02 - Apr 1 by tractorboy1978 |
Brentford's wages in the last accounts were £131m. I can't be bothered to check the rest. |
Brighton’s were £139m.
Don’t know where the OP has made up his numbers from. |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:57 - Apr 1 with 1956 views | algy |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:20 - Apr 1 by portmanking |
You can't be serious? It really isn't that black and white, is it?
Brentford signed players from a position of strength as an established PL side. We tried hard to upgrade areas of our squad as much as possible, but it was always going to be a huge jump after back-to-back promotions.
Context is everything. |
Yes it is black and white! On the players and McKenna's pay slips and bank accounts at least. Big numbers that didn't reflect what was "and achieved" in comparison to Brentford for example.Good for them that their pay wasn't performance related. They would have been entitled to benefits from DWP if it had! | |
| Never forget that on 7th. April 2021, for ITFC, the Game Changed. |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 18:06 - Apr 1 with 1930 views | mellowblue |
That many of our players who are pretty decent but not great footballers are multi-millionaires does not sit well with me. People should earn what they are worth, not this crazy over-inflated wages, industry called professional football. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 18:27 - Apr 1 with 1866 views | Illinoisblue |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:57 - Apr 1 by algy |
Yes it is black and white! On the players and McKenna's pay slips and bank accounts at least. Big numbers that didn't reflect what was "and achieved" in comparison to Brentford for example.Good for them that their pay wasn't performance related. They would have been entitled to benefits from DWP if it had! |
It must be easy living such a simple life. | |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 18:29 - Apr 1 with 1858 views | portmanking |
| Wages to turnover. on 18:27 - Apr 1 by Illinoisblue |
It must be easy living such a simple life. |
I know, I'm kinda jealous. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 18:55 - Apr 1 with 1788 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:02 - Apr 1 by tractorboy1978 |
Brentford's wages in the last accounts were £131m. I can't be bothered to check the rest. |
You probably made the error of looking at the official accounts rather than clickbait websites that reinforce your narrative. An easy mistake to make  |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 19:07 - Apr 1 with 1738 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:47 - Apr 1 by MrTown |
Brighton’s were £139m.
Don’t know where the OP has made up his numbers from. |
There are several clickbaity websites riddled with adverts that do a countdown of the top wages in the PL. I’ve seen one that said Brentford’s was £54M in 24/25, so they’re obviously miles out.
In fairness to the OP, you could be sucked in and believe that stuff.
Against the OP, it’s very easy to check and verify against official accounts. | |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 19:13 - Apr 1 with 1710 views | Illinoisblue |
| Wages to turnover. on 18:29 - Apr 1 by portmanking |
I know, I'm kinda jealous. |
Same. Unbothered by facts or context. Just coasting along. | |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:01 - Apr 1 with 1599 views | HighgateBlue |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:05 - Apr 1 by grow_our_own |
100% this. I don't think we'd mind the spending if there was decent return on investment. But I make it over 70m of major signings in the past 19 months who cannot get into the first team or who've been banished on loan. This is Ashton's player research & negotiating. We won't miss him. |
I do agree with this.
But this has not been the consensus view this season. If it becomes the consensus view because we all now (justifiably) dislike Ashton, then (a) surely people have to realise that whether signings made pre-Faragegate were good signings is totally unaffected by Faragegate, and (b) Kieran can't have a totally free pass as regards the signings that are now considered to have been poor. |  | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:11 - Apr 1 with 1558 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:10 - Apr 1 by portmanking |
Pathetic, isn't it? He's made a huge error in judgment, but the accounts look pretty healthy, if you ask me. To turn a profit and have £32m of FFP headroom is hugely encouraging. That headroom may even be the difference next season (if we don't get promoted), allowing us to compete just as strongly in terms of fees/wages with the newest parachute clubs. |
Is there headroom with turnover of £40 million and wages at what £65 million?
I think the liabilities are about to get serious. As the revenue leaves the conversation, if we don’t get promoted. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:16 - Apr 1 with 1519 views | MrTown |
| Wages to turnover. on 19:07 - Apr 1 by Swansea_Blue |
There are several clickbaity websites riddled with adverts that do a countdown of the top wages in the PL. I’ve seen one that said Brentford’s was £54M in 24/25, so they’re obviously miles out.
In fairness to the OP, you could be sucked in and believe that stuff.
Against the OP, it’s very easy to check and verify against official accounts. |
If they’re going to talk nonsense, at least sprinkle a bit of factual information in there.
They need to be better, I’ll give it a 2/10. [Post edited 1 Apr 20:18]
| |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 20:19 - Apr 1 with 1499 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:20 - Apr 1 by portmanking |
You can't be serious? It really isn't that black and white, is it?
Brentford signed players from a position of strength as an established PL side. We tried hard to upgrade areas of our squad as much as possible, but it was always going to be a huge jump after back-to-back promotions.
Context is everything. |
But that context is we had League One salaries. Lots of legacy squad players make up our £77 million.
We did have lots of room to work, and ended up spending more than any of them, as established premier league clubs, you’d expect even squad players to be in much more than our squad players - that’s just how agents and the market works.
SO we had some players and staff on massively more money than those clubs, eye watering sums.
Did we see that in the pitch? And it’s not as if they were oakuers we retained and developed…, most of that money had either left the building, we will try to move on at a loss, or what’s still here isn’t at premier league level.
Those sides aren’t signing any of our current squad.
I guess one issue is the scale of risk. The other though, is the outcome, we still have much of the liability, and we won’t even have the points total the legacy group achieved for less than half the cost. That’s the outcome.
Of course promotion would hide the cracks, so let’s wait until May.
The league one P&L wasn’t a burden, it was a unique opportunity to spend more than any other club, under the rules, and we did exactly that.
My issue is, it’s obvious now, on and off the pitch, we did it badly, certainly badly relative to everyone else…, we could look at Leeds and Sunderland too - spent less, lower wages, much better outcomes.
Thing is. If you don’t think Mark is accountable, and not KM, who is??
The points totals in that time and league tables - unlike us emotive fans, they don’t lie. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
