| Wages to turnover. 16:49 - Apr 1 with 3281 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 11:15 - Apr 2 with 344 views | darkhorse28 |
| Wages to turnover. on 10:12 - Apr 2 by RetroBlue |
tbf its a ...bit like politicians really innit ... "making up the numbers " etc |
What do you think our losses are this season?
Don’t even care? Sake. This is how you were with Ashton, unless someone explains it to you face, for 18 months solid, and everyone agrees so you have the comfort of group think, you don’t get it. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:24 - Apr 2 with 310 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:10 - Apr 2 by darkhorse28 |
That’s in the prem. I have zero concern in the prem about the numbers. Only the decision making.
We are in the EFL. How’s Nodges finances in the EFL, how were Leeds’??
You’ve missed the point. What liabilities do we have in the EFL from not only wages but amortised player purchases?
We aren’t fine. I can explain it, the rest is up to you. |
You've proven on this thread you have absolutely zero clue.
"Is there headroom with turnover of £40 million and wages at what £65 million?"
Parachute payments are around £50m for a start. So revenues in total will be at least £80m, probably higher. Wages won't be £65m either. More like £50m. Fairly standard for clubs to have 25-50% wage cuts on relegation. [Post edited 2 Apr 11:44]
| | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:53 - Apr 2 with 290 views | baxterbasics |
Look, just because 90% of us are now cross with Ashton, it doesn't mean we are suddenly interested in your ramblings. |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:00 - Apr 2 with 271 views | AVJones |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:24 - Apr 2 by tractorboy1978 |
You've proven on this thread you have absolutely zero clue.
"Is there headroom with turnover of £40 million and wages at what £65 million?"
Parachute payments are around £50m for a start. So revenues in total will be at least £80m, probably higher. Wages won't be £65m either. More like £50m. Fairly standard for clubs to have 25-50% wage cuts on relegation. [Post edited 2 Apr 11:44]
|
Approx. £50m parachute payment in first year of relegation, approx. £40 in year two. Then it drops a lot to (probably) under £20m.
So, with good financial management, we have two seasons where we have a big financial advantage over most teams to get promoted. We can offer higher salaries. We won’t have to sell players.
Then it becomes very hard. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:03 - Apr 2 with 261 views | TheMoralMajority |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:00 - Apr 2 by AVJones |
Approx. £50m parachute payment in first year of relegation, approx. £40 in year two. Then it drops a lot to (probably) under £20m.
So, with good financial management, we have two seasons where we have a big financial advantage over most teams to get promoted. We can offer higher salaries. We won’t have to sell players.
Then it becomes very hard. |
We don't get any in the 3rd year as we were only in the Prem for 1 year.
Can't speak for specific figures, as I do not recall them |  |
| |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:03 - Apr 2 with 257 views | tonybied |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:00 - Apr 2 by AVJones |
Approx. £50m parachute payment in first year of relegation, approx. £40 in year two. Then it drops a lot to (probably) under £20m.
So, with good financial management, we have two seasons where we have a big financial advantage over most teams to get promoted. We can offer higher salaries. We won’t have to sell players.
Then it becomes very hard. |
There is no parachute payment after next season. You only get it for 2 seasons if you spend just one year in the Premier League. [Post edited 2 Apr 12:04]
|  | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:20 - Apr 2 with 243 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:10 - Apr 2 by darkhorse28 |
That’s in the prem. I have zero concern in the prem about the numbers. Only the decision making.
We are in the EFL. How’s Nodges finances in the EFL, how were Leeds’??
You’ve missed the point. What liabilities do we have in the EFL from not only wages but amortised player purchases?
We aren’t fine. I can explain it, the rest is up to you. |
You don't explain - you claim, with no substance or references.
Will we make a loss through 25/26? Most certainly - as will almost every Championship club and PL club. For clubs that have announced 24/25 accounts, Hull lost £40M, Coventry £20M, Norwich £40M, Bristol/Derby/QPR all over £20M
In 23/24 the 24 Championship clubs lost a combined £411M, averaging close to £20M. 24/25 will be higher (look at growing transfer costs in the Championship alone).
Now that you've switched from you fictitious wages to turnover claims, let's look at a projection for our 25/25 losses USING the published accounts, and some declared assumptions. You always go on about Ashton's lack of transparency - you should try to be a little more transparent with how you come up with your figures, but you won't because you know they won't stand up to scrutiny.
23/24 losses - (£40M)
Player amortisation in the most recent accounts - (£25M)
- Players off the books / sold £10M
- Players added / bought (£12M)
Estimated player amortisation costs for 25/26 therefore (£27M)
Wages difference (£15M)
23/24 (£45M)
25/26 (£60M) - may be lower; we don't know how much relegation clauses reduced PL levels
Where does that leave us?
23/24 losses (£40M)
Player amortisation change (£27M)
Turnover change £60M
Wages change (£15M)
Total loss (£22M)
So our loss will be lower than our 23/24 promotion season, inline with the 23/23 Championship average, likely much lower than the estimated 24/25 Championship average (which will no doubt be even higher for 25/26 which is what these would be for), and way below the worst losses in the 24/25 Championship including Norwich.
These level of losses keep us well within FFP rules with a £32M buffer.
If we get promoted, there will be exceptional / promotion bonus costs to be added. If we assume these are similar to 23/24, that increases the loss to (£38M) - still a reduction compared to 23/24, so a healthy direction.
So over to you - come on, really explain IN DETAIL how you arrive at you claimed financial catastrophe. | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:24 - Apr 2 with 236 views | Bobbychase |
| Wages to turnover. on 17:39 - Apr 1 by 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. |
Exactly. There is some rewriting of history going on because of Faragegate. Ashton has been a superb CEO up to this point. The idea he has taken a risky approach to our finances is laughable.
And for those who think capable chairman/CEOs are two a penny and he can be easily replaced, get your heads up and take a look around at English football in general. They are not common. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Wages to turnover. on 12:24 - Apr 2 with 236 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:03 - Apr 2 by TheMoralMajority |
We don't get any in the 3rd year as we were only in the Prem for 1 year.
Can't speak for specific figures, as I do not recall them |
See my earlier post including parachute payments extracted from recent clubs' accounts - ~£58M in year 1 and ~£51M in year 2 (based on the accounts I looked at). [Post edited 2 Apr 12:49]
| | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 10:03 - Apr 3 with 151 views | AVJones |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:03 - Apr 2 by tonybied |
There is no parachute payment after next season. You only get it for 2 seasons if you spend just one year in the Premier League. [Post edited 2 Apr 12:04]
|
Ouch, worse than I thought
This season or next, then | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 11:49 - Apr 3 with 127 views | Leaky |
| Wages to turnover. on 21:11 - Apr 1 by MrTown |
I have no idea what that post is, so I’m going to brush over it.
I haven’t given out any votes in the last year, I haven’t been here, I only came back last week to watch the Farage parade explode on TWTD.
I’ll stick around a little bit but bounce again soon, I was hoping to see Bluefish, he was the original antagonist on here, the real ones will remember him, seems the standards have slipped on here. |
You missed out on Elephant man, or has he morphed into dark Horse |  | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:10 - Apr 3 with 110 views | AVJones |
| Wages to turnover. on 12:03 - Apr 2 by tonybied |
There is no parachute payment after next season. You only get it for 2 seasons if you spend just one year in the Premier League. [Post edited 2 Apr 12:04]
|
Ouch, worse than I thought
This season or next, then | | | |
| Wages to turnover. on 13:11 - Apr 3 with 95 views | itfcsuth |
| Wages to turnover. on 22:14 - Apr 1 by Illinoisblue |
Africa and Europe has to be the way forward. But there’s literally hundreds of other clubs trying to shop in those same markets.
Unearthing a few homegrown gems via the yooofs would be nice, too, but that seemingly is a desert. |
Would add South America to your list, would edge for Africa and South America, but there are always options in Europe, sometimes in the lesser appreciated leagues.
Think Brighton have shown real success in African and South American talents though for seriously good value. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
